ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Occupied Palestinian Territories

Guto Bebb: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of aid provided to the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Andrew Mitchell: Both the Minister of State, who is today attending the Friends of Yemen meeting in Riyadh, and I keep a close eye on the effectiveness of our programme in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Guto Bebb: I thank the Minister for his response. On a trip to Israel and the west bank earlier this year, I saw education materials that incited violence and the use of Palestinian Authority broadcast media to glorify conflict, not least relating to a group of children singing about the aim to saturate their land with blood. Will the Secretary of State provide assurances that our aid donations do not contribute towards such incitement? Will he highlight what steps the Government are taking to deter the Palestinian Authority from supporting such publications and broadcasts?

Andrew Mitchell: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I would be very interested to see the material he describes. I can tell him that numerous credible studies show no evidence of incitement or anti-Semitism in Palestinian Authority textbooks, so if he ensures that we get a copy of what he has seen, we will take the appropriate action.

Richard Burden: Has the International Development Secretary joined the Foreign Secretary and, curiously, the Education Secretary in meeting Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman during his visit to the UK? Irrespective of whether he meets him, will the right hon. Gentleman transmit to the Israeli Foreign Minister the concerns of the United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Deputy Emergency Relief Co-ordinator, who visited the west bank last week and said:
	“I am extremely concerned about the humanitarian impact of demolitions and displacement on Palestinian families. Such actions cause great human suffering, run counter to international law and must be brought to a halt”?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Mitchell: I do not have any current plans to meet the Foreign Minister from Israel, although I met a series of Israeli Foreign Ministers when I was there just before Christmas. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments are passed on to the Foreign Secretary.

Bob Russell: I also visited the west bank and East Jerusalem last year and I saw the consequences of ethnic cleansing and apartheid. Will the Secretary of State assure us that Church groups will be urged to get the Government of Israel to follow the parable of the Good Samaritan?

Andrew Mitchell: I raised the issue of religious tolerance when I visited the west bank and Israel at the end of last year. The hon. Gentleman’s comments will have been heard by the Foreign Office, which I have no doubt will pursue them.

Andy Slaughter: We need to focus on the real issue of aid, not on red herrings about its misuse by the Palestinians. The fact is that Israel has blockaded Gaza and the checkpoints in the west bank are stifling any attempt by the British Government to bring aid to the Palestinians. What is the Secretary of State doing to make the Israelis co-operate in respect of the aid that Britain and the EU gives to the Palestinians?

Andrew Mitchell: Britain has an extremely well-targeted aid and development programme in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It focuses on building the capacity of the Palestinian Authority to provide good government and support for the two-state solution. It focuses, too, on wealth creation and economic growth, which are important. The third strand principally supports the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, and ensures that we fulfil our humanitarian responsibilities. The programme is very well placed, and we make certain that it achieves all three of those things effectively.

Matthew Offord: The next generation of Palestinian peacemakers and state builders are too frequently exposed to messages of hate and violence rather than of peaceful co-existence. What measures are in place to ensure that aid is used to teach mutual understanding and reconciliation?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. A recent study was set up by the Americans to look at the content of textbooks and teaching both in Israel and in the west bank for precisely the reason that he sets out. We take this issue very seriously. I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives a copy of that report when it is published.

Eilidh Whiteford: Control of international arms transfers is essential to the effectiveness of aid-related conflict resolution measures in the occupied territories and other places. The UK has a key role to play at the UN arms trade treaty negotiations next month. Will the Secretary of State—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am trying to be generous, but I think allowing latitude would be excessive in this case. I am afraid that the hon. Lady’s comments do not relate sufficiently closely to the question on the Order Paper.

Clean Water and Sanitation

Chris Kelly: What support his Department provides for clean water and sanitation in developing countries.

Andrew Mitchell: The British Government consider that access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene is among the most basic of human needs. At the recent summit in Washington, I announced this Government’s intention to double the commitment on water and sanitation that we made last year.

Chris Kelly: I welcome the Department’s commitment to doubling the provision of water and sanitation so that it reaches 60 million people, but will my right hon. Friend assure me that sufficient priority is now being given to sanitation? Too often in the past, priority has been given solely to the provision of clean water.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the importance of sanitation. That is why the International Development Committee called its report on these matters “Sanitation and Clean Water” rather than referring to WASH—water, sanitation and hygiene. As he says, for every UK citizen we will provide clean water or sanitation for someone in the poor world who does not have it today. That is an important priority for Members on both sides of the House, and Britain is honouring it.

Gregory Campbell: The Secretary of State will be aware of the tremendous work done by charities such as Excellent Development which supply clean water to many regions in Kenya and Uganda at a fraction of the normal cost. Will he ensure that the Government do what they can to assist such tremendous and cost-effective work?

Andrew Mitchell: We make it an absolute priority to ensure that British taxpayers’ money goes as far as it possibly can, and that we secure 100p of delivery on the ground for every pound that we spend. We continue to ensure that we deliver clean water and sanitation at the lowest possible price.

The Sahel

Amber Rudd: What recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in the Sahel.

Stephen O'Brien: The situation is extremely grave. Eighteen million people across the Sahel are at risk of food shortages, and 8 million of them are now in need of immediate assistance. The British people, through the UK Government, have responded swiftly to the crisis, providing aid for over 400,000 people who have been caught up in this disaster.

Amber Rudd: The United Kingdom has been admirable in its support for the region, but with 18 million people vulnerable to the impact of the crisis, which is due to peak in about six weeks’ time, and with further delays to the donor conference, what can the UK Government do now to invest in the region and help those people?

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Like her, I fear that the worst is yet to come. The hunger season in July and August is imminent. The United Nations, with which we are working extremely closely and consistently, is revising its appeals from about £452 million to about £1 billion as a matter of urgency in response to the growing need in the Sahel, and the final appeal for Mali is due to be released at the end of this month. The Department has a special team in place, and we are monitoring the situation closely. That includes assessing the appeals. My ministerial colleagues and I are keeping an extremely close eye on the position.

Chris Evans: Given recent reports that the African Union has delayed the pledging conference to deal with the crisis until June, what assurances can the Minister give that the UK Government are doing all that they can to establish a date, and who will represent the UK at the conference?

Stephen O'Brien: I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that we are sparing no effort whatever in seeking to persuade all the various parties and stakeholders who can provide assistance to meet the emerging humanitarian crisis. The amount that the UK people have already provided through our humanitarian support has staved off some of the worst, but the trouble is that the crisis continues to escalate.
	The question of attendance at the various meetings is being decided, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we will ensure that we are well represented.

Andrew Murrison: The deteriorating security situation in northern Mali around Timbuktu has caused the European Union to reduce severely the amount of aid that it feels able to give. Given that the UK donates a great deal of its aid through the European Union, will the Minister say what continuing aid we will be able to provide for the people of Mali?

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Because of the conflict, the situation in northern Mali is extremely grave, especially around Timbuktu. That is in addition to intense pressures in areas across the Sahel such as Niger and northern Nigeria. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that work is being done both through our bilateral humanitarian system and, in particular, through European support which has already contributed some £106 million to help with the Sahel crisis. We will continue to work very closely with those involved, not least because of the attribution of the contribution that we make.

Tony Cunningham: In view of the widespread recognition that there is an urgent food and security crisis in the Sahel, will the Minister tell me what criteria were used to determine that UK aid to the region should be halved between 2010 and 2012?

Stephen O'Brien: As I hope the hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a difference between the humanitarian response and programme issues. I think that he was referring to Niger, where we supported a programme led by the French which served the purpose for which it was intended. As for the humanitarian process, we continue to work with a range of international partners in trying
	to ensure that the donor burden is spread fairly and equitably, while also ensuring that we in the UK step up to our responsibilities.

Official Development Assistance

Gregg McClymont: Whether the Government plan to spend 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance by 2013.

Andrew Mitchell: Yes.

Gregg McClymont: The Minister’s answer is welcome, but given the Government’s failure, in what is a rather thin legislative programme, to embed that 0.7% investment in law, can he give a guarantee that there will be the same level of investment in those less fortunate than ourselves in 2014 and 2015?

Andrew Mitchell: The Government have been very clear, as have all Members of the House, about our commitment to the poorest in the world and not to balance the books on the backs of the least fortunate. We are the first Government ever to set out clearly how we will meet our 0.7% commitment. On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about the law, the Bill in question has been drafted, the Prime Minister and I have said that it will proceed, and it rests with the business managers to decide the date for that.

James Gray: Does the Secretary of State agree that in response to those who, rather facilely, argue that charity should begin at home and that we should not be spending this money, it should be pointed out that not only do we have a moral obligation to people around the world who are less fortunate than ourselves, but we are spending the money firmly in Britain’s best strategic interests?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. For a spend of less than 1% of gross national income, we are investing in our future prosperity and our security, as well as doing the right thing by the least fortunate in the world.

Women’s Health (Egypt)

Helen Goodman: What programmes his Department has put in place to improve women’s health in Egypt.

Stephen O'Brien: I am mindful of the fact that the first round of presidential elections in Egypt is taking place as we speak. My Department is focused on economic and political transition in Egypt through the Arab Partnership. We do not have a health programme there, but the Department is committed to improving women’s health across the world, with particular focus on the poorest countries and the most vulnerable women. Over the next five years, our support will help to save the lives of at least 50,000 women in pregnancy and childbirth.

Helen Goodman: The rate of female genital mutilation in Egypt is now 70%. Some in the country’s political parties want to change the constitution to end all legal restrictions on the practice. I am sure that if the proposal was to chop off part of men’s genitalia, the Minister would put this issue at the top of his agenda. Will he prioritise ending this barbaric human rights abuse?

Stephen O'Brien: I absolutely agree that it is a wholly unacceptable and barbaric practice. It is a custom that has survived for millennia, and I assure the hon. Lady that I have taken up this issue on many occasions, and that I seek to ensure it is highlighted. It is genuinely one of the issues that we have put at the top of our agenda, and I discuss it whenever I get the chance to do so in the many countries of Africa where it is prevalent. I assure her that we are committed to this very important project.

Jo Swinson: The best guarantee of making women’s health a priority, and ending the barbaric practices to which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) alludes, is making sure women are actively involved, and listened to, in the political process. In what ways is the Department working with women’s organisations and democracy-building organisations to support Egyptian women in making sure their voices are heard?

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Lady makes a very important point. I hope she recognises that the Department has put girls and women front and centre of everything we do. We want to ensure that girl’s and women’s voices are heard, particularly as we develop our various future programmes, not least post-2015.

Occupied Palestinian Territories

Karen Lumley: What support the Arab Partnership Participation Fund has provided to projects on political reform and free and fair elections in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Andrew Mitchell: The Arab Partnership Participation Fund has supported political participation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It has funded a variety of civil society projects.

Karen Lumley: Democracy is something that we in this country take for granted. Will the Minister assure me that, as part of our future campaign, we will promote democracy and the rule of law in the occupied territories?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend puts her finger on a key ingredient of development. Promoting democracy and the rule of law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is central to our engagement in the region, as I described in answer to an earlier question.

Mark Durkan: Does the Secretary of State’s hope for free and fair elections to the Palestinian Authority extend to Palestinians in East Jerusalem?

Andrew Mitchell: The British Government’s position is clear and unequivocal on this, as the Foreign Secretary has assured the House on many occasions. Our commitment to promoting the two-state solution and to promoting democracy in this troubled area is absolute.

Copenhagen Consensus Recommendations

Harriett Baldwin: What assessment he has made of the recommendations by the Copenhagen Consensus 2012 expert panel on setting priorities for development aid.

Stephen O'Brien: The Copenhagen Consensus 2012 is a valuable contribution to the development debate, particularly given its focus on getting the best value for money and greatest impact from aid. This is of course also a major priority for the coalition Government, and DFID’s programme priorities are closely aligned with the recommendations from the Copenhagen Consensus. I find the analysis compelling, and I have been working with the Consensus since 2004.

Harriett Baldwin: The economists and Nobel laureates of the Copenhagen Consensus have found that spending on tackling malnutrition provides the most value for money in terms of economic development. How much of the Department’s budget is spent on bundled micronutrient interventions?

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and she is right to say that the Copenhagen Consensus puts bundled micronutrient interventions to fight hunger and improve education at the very top of its list of the most desirable activities to achieve maximum impact. Right across our programmes, we have been increasing the delivery of nutrient supplements and fighting hunger. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in Washington last week that we will be supporting the new alliance for food security and nutrition in order to improve food supply and farming across Africa and help to pull 50 million people out of chronic poverty over the next 10 years.

Keith Vaz: How will these excellent priorities help the people of Yemen, almost half of whom are starving?[Official Report, 12 June 2012, Vol. 546, c. 1-2MC.]

Stephen O'Brien: In Yemen, many of the current challenges are humanitarian. Today, we have announced £26 million of humanitarian support and aid to ensure that some of the needs of the population—nearly half of whom, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly observes, are starving—are met. While we are in the humanitarian phase, that is patently the most important response, but we also need to look at the future of governance and resilience in order to improve the lot of the population.

Post-MDG Framework (Women and Girls)

Sharon Hodgson: What steps he has taken to ensure that women and girls are central to any consultation on a post-millennium development goals framework.

Stephen O'Brien: We are very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been asked by the United Nations Secretary-General to co-chair the high-level panel on a framework to replace the millennium development goals. That process will of course need to be open and consultative, and I
	am confident that the voice of girls and women, who are often among the world’s poorest people, will be heard.
	[
	Interruption.
	]

Mr Speaker: There are a lot of noisy private conversations taking place. Let us have a bit of order for Mrs Sharon Hodgson.

Sharon Hodgson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
	I thank the Minister for his response and welcome the UK’s customary leadership on this issue. He mentioned the voice of the poorest, among whom the hardest to hear are often women and girls. I am sure he agrees that their voice is the most important one that needs to be heard in order to develop the framework following the millennium development goals. What plans has he in place to ensure that their voice is heard, and what is his timeline for such a framework?

Stephen O'Brien: The hon. Lady will be aware that this is work in progress and that a series of meetings and consultations is being initiated. I can give her an absolute assurance that we are building on the success of the current MDG framework, but we also need to learn from its gaps and weaknesses. Part of doing so is making sure that, in addition to providing simple and clear aims, we consult widely and ensure that we reflect the fact that the world has changed, rather than the past. That includes the importance of the views of girls and women in the future.

Ivan Lewis: As the Minister knows, I have welcomed the Prime Minister’s appointment to co-chair the UN panel on the new millennium development goals framework. However, unlike his predecessors—Tony Blair and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—this Prime Minister has shown no inclination at the G8, G20 or EU summits to champion the importance of development. Will the Minister explain the core values that will underpin the UK’s approach to a new global development framework, and can he bring himself to utter the words “social justice and human rights”?

Stephen O'Brien: In an area where normally there is a degree of consensus across the House, I am deeply disappointed that the hon. Gentleman should choose to suggest that there is any diminution in our effort. I would argue that the opposite is the case; at the first G8 meeting, there was a clear focus on development by the Prime Minister, and only last week we had the whole focus on food and nutrition. It does not serve the hon. Gentleman well to seek to make a political point out of something that simply has no legs.

Topical Questions

Ian Lucas: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Andrew Mitchell: My Department is very focused on delivering the results of the family planning summit that will take place in London on 11 July, chaired by our Prime Minister and Melinda Gates. We have been very focused on the food agenda at the G8 Development Ministers meeting last week, and I will shortly be visiting Malawi.

Ian Lucas: Two weeks ago, I visited a charitably funded Bedouin school in the west bank that was threatened with demolition by the Israeli Government. This is not the way to make progress, so will the Secretary of State make urgent representations to the Israeli Government to prevent the demolition of places of learning?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that almost all these demolitions are illegal, and that is a point that the Foreign Secretary has made regularly in his meetings with the Israeli Government.

Gavin Barwell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on ensuring that the taxpayer benefits from the sale of our remaining stake in Actis. Is that not in sharp contrast with the shameful way in which the previous Government allowed Actis to be spun out of CDC in such a way that the British taxpayer did not receive a single penny?

Andrew Mitchell: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is entirely correct; the shameful way in which the previous Government sought to privatise Actis has meant that the taxpayer has received nothing at all from this management company. Thanks to the changes that the coalition Government have made, it is estimated that the taxpayer will receive between $100 million and $200 million.

Rushanara Ali: The forthcoming Rio+20 conference is an important opportunity for this Government to show international leadership on climate change, green jobs and sustainable development. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many meetings have taken place between his Department and other relevant Departments to ensure a joined-up British approach to the Rio conference? Will he write to me with more details?

Andrew Mitchell: I can tell the hon. Lady that meetings are taking place every week and every day, most recently yesterday. The delegation will be led by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and I have discussed this with him within the past 24 hours.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us have a bit of order for Mr Bob Blackman.

Bob Blackman: I warmly welcome the dramatic increase in aid to our Commonwealth partners, including the funding for the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust. Will my right hon. Friend inform the House of the type of projects we are funding that are much-needed by our Commonwealth allies?

Andrew Mitchell: The whole House will be grateful to Sir John Major for chairing the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust. The British Government have put in £50 million to the match fund for these projects. Under the previous Government, support for the Commonwealth declined from some 45% of our development budget to 35%, whereas under this Government, over five years, it will increase to 55%.

Fabian Hamilton: The situation in Syria continues to take lives, as well as to produce instability in the region. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what action the British Government are taking to help with the humanitarian crisis in that country?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Foreign Secretary has been doing at the United Nations. On humanitarian support, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are supporting the United Nations, its Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and a number of international non-governmental organisations on dealing with the consequences both outside Syria—on the borders and in the surrounding countries—and internally, within that country.

Amber Rudd: In the context of the NATO summit and the planned withdrawal from Afghanistan, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the provision for women’s rights after our departure?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is entirely right to focus on the role of women in Afghanistan. On my recent visit to Afghanistan, I launched a new civil society fund that will directly address her point. Additionally, the fact that the international community has helped to secure places for 6 million children in school in Afghanistan in recent years will have a transformational effect on the role of women in Afghanistan.

Graham Jones: South Sudan is slipping towards war. Recently leaked documents from the World Bank have highlighted the fact that the south could be completely bankrupt by July as a result of the oil dispute. With countries such as China moving to fill the democratic gap, there should be concern that good democratic governance could slip off the agenda in South Sudan. What is his Department doing to ensure that that does not happen?

Andrew Mitchell: Ministers in my Department have had robust meetings with the Government of South Sudan and that of Sudan. The message we give is that it is important that oil should be brought back into commission and exported from Sudan and it is very important that the African Union road map should be adhered to by both sides.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Karen Bradley: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 May.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Karen Bradley: People in Staffordshire Moorlands recognise that the Government need to take difficult decisions to deal with the deficit, but does the Prime Minister shiver when he thinks about what would have happened had he not put a credible fiscal plan in place?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is worth while listening to what the managing director of the International Monetary Fund said yesterday. She said:
	“when I think back myself to May 2010, when the UK deficit was at 11% and I try to imagine what the situation would be like today if no such fiscal consolidation programme had been decided...I shiver.”
	That is what she said and we should remember who is responsible for leaving that situation, doubling the national debt and leaving a record debt and a catastrophic inheritance—one for which we still have not had an apology.

Edward Miliband: Adrian Beecroft, the Prime Minister’s adviser, says that the law should be changed to allow employers to fire people at will. The Business Secretary says that that is the last thing the Government should do. Who does the Prime Minister agree with?

David Cameron: We need to make it easier for businesses to grow, for businesses to take people on and for businesses to expand. The Beecroft report, which I commissioned, had a number of excellent ideas that we are taking forward. We are doubling the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, exempting businesses with fewer than 10 people from new EU regulations and exempting 1 million self-employed people from health and safety. We are consulting on no-fault dismissal, but only for micro-businesses. It was a good report and it is right that we should take forward its best measures.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister did not answer the question about the proposal—[ Interruption. ] No, he did not answer the question. Mr Beecroft made a proposal that employers should be able to fire their employees at will. The people sitting behind the Prime Minister think that the Beecroft proposal is a great report—that it is the bee’s knees—and they support the proposal. The people over there on the Liberal Democrat Benches think it is a bonkers proposal and the Business Secretary has been going around saying that. We just want to know where the Prime Minister stands. Who does he agree with?

David Cameron: It is rather sad; the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. We have a call for evidence on no-fault dismissal for micro-businesses and we are not proceeding with it for other businesses. That is the position. I am not surprised at the question, as I know he worries about being fired at will for being incompetent.

Edward Miliband: I wonder how long it took him to think that one up. The Prime Minister says that he is consulting on the proposal. The author of the proposal, Mr Beecroft, said that
	“some people would be dismissed simply because their employer did not like them. While this is sad I believe it is a price worth paying”.
	That is what they used to say about unemployment. Is he really telling us that with record numbers out of work, sacking people for no good reason is a price worth paying?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman might, while he is on his feet, welcome the fact that unemployment is falling, inflation is falling, and that this Government
	have cut the deficit by 25%. Let me explain to him what the Government and the Business Secretary are doing. We are cutting regulation by £3 billion, we are scrapping 1,500 regulations, we are looking at introducing fees for employment tribunals. We are taking all these steps, which led last year to the greatest number of small business start-ups in the country’s history. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman cannot support any changes to employment regulation because he is in the pocket of the trade unions.

Edward Miliband: In case the Prime Minister has not noticed, his Business Secretary does not support his proposal. What double standards. When it comes to ordinary—[Interruption.] Oh yes. When it comes to ordinary workers, the Prime Minister wants to make it easier for employers to sack them. When it comes to Andy Coulson and the Culture Secretary, it is all about second chances. Can the Prime Minister tell us what impression he thinks it gives about his Government that he commissions advice from a multi-millionaire who recommends making it easier to sack people on low pay, at the same time as giving people like him tens of thousands of pounds in a millionaires’ tax cut?

David Cameron: I will tell you what we do on the Government Benches. We commission a report, we accept the bits that we agree with and we reject the bits that we do not agree with. What the right hon. Gentleman does is take instructions from his trade union paymasters and he cannot accept any changes. He asks what we are doing for the poorest people in our country. It is this Government who are taking 2 million people out of income tax, who have increased tax credits for the poorest, who have got more people in work with 600,000 new private sector jobs, and who have frozen the council tax. His record was completely the opposite.

Edward Miliband: This is not about the trade unions. It is about millions of people up and down the country in fear for their jobs, and the only answer that this Prime Minister has is, “Make it easier to sack them.” This proposal is a symbol of the Government’s failure on growth. We are in a double-dip recession, unemployment is high, businesses are going bust, there are bad retail sales figures today. Does not the Prime Minister understand how out of touch he sounds to families when he says, as he did last week, that things are moving in the right direction?

David Cameron: I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that this is about the trade unions. Let me tell him why. He is getting £900,000 from Unite, and that union is threatening a bus strike during the Olympics. What have we heard from him? Silence. He is getting £400,000 from the GMB. That union is holding a baggage handlers strike over the diamond jubilee weekend. Absolute silence from him. People need to know that there are two parties on the Government Benches acting in the national interest, and an Opposition party acting in the trade union interest.

Edward Miliband: Let us talk about donations. On 21 March the Chancellor cut the top rate of income tax. Then the money comes flooding in from the Tory millionaire donors. It tells us all we need to know about this Government. They stand up for the wrong people.
	The Prime Minister may have changed the image of the Tory party, but the reality has not changed: tax cuts for millionaires; making it easier to sack people—the nasty party is back.

David Cameron: It is this Government who cut corporation tax, who set up the enterprise zones, who are reforming the planning law, who boosted the apprenticeships, who scrapped Labour’s jobs tax and who cut taxes for 24 million working people, and it is only Labour that thinks the answer is more borrowing, more spending, more debt—exactly the problems that got us into this mess in the first place.

Hon. Members: More, more.

Mr Speaker: Order. We will have more, but it will be from Mr David Mowat.

David Mowat: In 1993 the IRA bombed Warrington, killing two small boys and injuring more than 50 other people. Last week a memorial plaque with a scrap value of about £40 was stolen. The Government have already legislated to prevent the sale of scrap metal for cash. Will the Prime Minister consider further legislation making the theft of such memorials an aggravating factor?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I know that the whole country was shocked by the theft of that memorial; everyone remembers the Warrington bomb and the people who died in it. He is right to say that we have already legislated and made this an offence. We are also doing everything we can to sort out the problems of the scrap metal trade. I will look at his suggestion of an aggravated offence, but clearly any court can hand out exemplary sentences in these sorts of circumstances because public justice is important, and the public are absolutely appalled by what has happened.

Youth Unemployment

John Mann: What assessment he has made of the level of youth unemployment.

David Cameron: There are two ways of measuring youth unemployment: first, the International Labour Organisation definition, which includes both full and part-time students and gives a figure of just over 1 million; and secondly, the claimant count, which currently stands at 466,000. Clearly youth unemployment is too high on either measure, although I note that it rose by 40% under the previous Government. Recently it fell by 17,000 in the last quarter. If we look at the claimant count and include people on out-of-work schemes, we see that the number of young unemployed people has actually fallen since the election.

John Mann: The number of young people in my constituency who are unemployed, underemployed and have fewer opportunities has greatly increased in the past year. Therefore, today we are setting up a taskforce specifically to deal with this increasing scourge. Will the
	Prime Minister commit to the active participation of every relevant Government Department in our taskforce’s work?

David Cameron: I certainly will do that, because there is vital work to be done to help young unemployed people. What we are finding with all the schemes we have, whether the Work programme or the youth contract, is that the most useful thing is actually the work experience scheme, because it gives young people a real leg-up and experience of the workplace and, therefore, removes some of the disadvantages they face as against older workers. We are finding that it has a much better record than other schemes, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to push that and pioneer it in his constituency with the help of all the agencies, as he has said.

Engagements

Gary Streeter: Did my right hon. Friend see the figures released last week showing that since May 2010 the number of people waiting for an operation on the national health service has fallen by over 50,000? Does that not demonstrate that our commitment to increased health funding and our health reforms are beginning to bear fruit?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. We made an important and difficult decision that, while other budgets were being cut, we would protect the NHS budget. That was not supported by the Labour party, but the fact is that we now have the best ever performance for patients waiting over 18 weeks, the numbers for those waiting more than 26 weeks and 52 weeks have also reached record lows, and average waiting times for both in-patients and out-patients are lower than they were in May 2010. The Labour party often asked whether the test should be the number of people waiting over 18 weeks. Well, if that was the test, we have passed it with flying colours.

Gisela Stuart: Just over a year ago the Prime Minister launched his flagship export enterprise finance guarantee scheme. We now learn that only five companies have benefited from the scheme. Hard-working businesses in Birmingham that would like to export but cite lack of export finance guarantee as a problem are keen to know who those five lucky companies are and why the scheme has been such a dismal failure.

David Cameron: I will certainly write to the hon. Lady, because the truth is that that export scheme has been rolled into the export guarantee scheme more generally and the amount of export support is massively up on the last election, with billions of pounds in extra money being spent. The other point I would make is that exports, compared with 2010, were up by over 12% last year.

Andrea Leadsom: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Northamptonshire Parent-Infant Partnership on its sell-out conference on early years intervention last week, where 27 local authorities were represented? Does he agree that, if we are serious about
	strengthening our society, providing psychotherapeutic support for families struggling to bond with their new babies is absolutely key?

David Cameron: I know that my hon. Friend speaks with a lot of personal experience, having set up a project in Oxfordshire, the county I represent, that has had a major impact. I think that her work does her huge credit. The truth is that all the studies show that real disadvantage for children kicks in right from the moment they are born if they do not get the love, support and help they need. That is why the projects she is talking about, along with the expansion of the health visitors scheme—4,200 extra health visitors—which can make a real difference, are so important. I will also point out the measure we took last week to make sure that new parents get proper contact with and information from their midwife both before and after their child is born so that we do everything to remove that disadvantage in the early months and years.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that he will not succumb to the diktat from the European Court of Human Rights in relation to prisoners voting, that he will stand up for the resolution that was agreed in this House by an overwhelming majority and that he will stand up for the sovereignty of this House and the British people?

David Cameron: The short answer to that is yes. I have always believed that when someone is sent to prison they lose certain rights, and one of those rights is the right to vote. Crucially, I believe that it should be a matter for Parliament to decide, not a foreign court. Parliament has made its decision, and I completely agree with it.

Jeremy Lefroy: Today, Alstom is opening in my constituency a new facility for the engineering, manufacturing and export of power electronics, in which Stafford is a world leader. Following the news of the first trade surplus in motor vehicles for more than 30 years, what measures does my right hon. Friend consider to be essential to continue and to increase investment in manufacturing?

David Cameron: I very much remember visiting GEC Alstom when I contested my hon. Friend’s constituency rather unsuccessfully in 1997, but what is absolutely essential for such manufacturing, engineering and technology-based businesses are the support that we are giving to apprenticeships, whereby we achieved more than 450,000 apprenticeship starts last year; the lower rate of corporation tax; and the links between our universities and the new catapult centres in order to ensure that technology goes into our businesses and makes them world-beating. If we look not just at our exports overall, which were up 12% last year, but at exports to India, China and fast-growing markets, we find that they are up 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%.

Jack Dromey: The Prime Minister pledged to give England’s great cities a seat at the heart of government. Yesterday, Labour took control of Birmingham city council, and the first thing that the new council did was agree to ask the Prime
	Minister to receive a delegation from the council and Birmingham’s MPs on a fair deal for Birmingham. Will the Prime Minister make good on his pledge and agree to meet that delegation?

David Cameron: Of course, I am happy to meet leaders of Birmingham city council, as I meet leaders of councils up and down the country. What is important is focusing on what needs to be done in Birmingham to drive economic growth and to make sure that we provide good services, but I very much hope that the new council will match the record of the old council in providing value for money.

Paul Maynard: Child neglect is a sad fact in all our constituencies, and in Blackpool we await the sentencing of two parents who pleaded guilty this week to keeping their 10-year-old son in demeaning circumstances in a coal bunker. At the same time, the charity Action for Children has highlighted the fact that the law on child neglect dates from 1933 and no longer corresponds to the demands of modern parenting. Does the Prime Minister not agree that it is time to ask the Law Commission to look at this law once again?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right to raise that completely shocking case, and for anyone trying to understand how a parent could treat that child that way, it is just completely unfathomable. I will obviously look at what he says about the Law Commission and modernising the law, but in dealing with such appalling cases of child neglect and with families that have completely broken down, we have so many agencies currently working on this, including, crucially, social workers, and the most important thing is to have a real system of passing on information and passing on concerns rapidly—and then acting on them. Just passing another law will not make up for the common sense and action that we require our agencies to deliver.

Stella Creasy: I thank the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for joining so many of their colleagues yesterday in abstaining from the vote against my “Save Bianca” amendment. Given that 65% of the public want to see caps on the cost of credit, when does the Prime Minister think his Ministers will finally give in and do something about ending legal loan sharking in the UK?

David Cameron: As the hon. Lady knows, we have a new power for the Financial Conduct Authority, which has been established, and the Office of Fair Trading has powers as well, so it is very important to talk to those agencies and to make sure that they can act.

Christopher Pincher: The local council tax frozen for two years, the lowest inflation rate in three years and the biggest monthly fall in local unemployment in five years is great news for jobseekers, pensioners and savers in Tamworth. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although times are tough and much still needs to be done, this Government and this country are on the right track?

David Cameron: Clearly, we face difficult economic times. We will go on in a minute to talk about the growth plans that are required in Europe, but what we have to do in this country is rebalance our economy, which had become over-reliant on the public sector, over-reliant on financial services and not fairly spread around the country. We need a growth of the private sector and of manufacturing and technology, and we need it to be more fairly spread across the country, including in the area that my hon. Friend represents. What we see from the employment figures is, yes, a decline in public sector employment, which would frankly be inevitable whoever was in power right now, but the 600,000 net new jobs in the private sector show that some firms are expanding and growing, and we must be on their side.

Iain Wright: Unemployment in Hartlepool and the north-east is higher now than in May 2010. How much of that increase is down to the Prime Minister’s Government’s policies?

David Cameron: The point that I made to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is that the last Government excluded from the unemployment numbers people who were on temporary employment schemes. We include those people. People on the Work programme are included in the unemployment numbers. We measure these things accurately, and comparing like for like, youth unemployment has fallen since the election.

Julian Huppert: Britain has an excellent track record in scientific research and development, despite historically low levels of funding. For this to continue, and to continue to drive so much economic growth, sustained funding is required. Can the Prime Minister assure me that this will be delivered in this Parliament and the next comprehensive spending review?

David Cameron: Obviously, I cannot bind the hands of the next comprehensive spending review, but in this spending review we made an important decision to protect the science budget. It would have been an easy target for reductions, and perhaps we could have spent the money on politically more attractive things, but we decided to take the long-term view and to save the science budget because it is a key part of Britain’s future.

Chris Evans: The Home Office recently announced that 800 front-line police officers would be cut in Wales, while Jeff Mapps, the chair of the Welsh Police Federation, says that the figure will be closer to 1,600, which would be the equivalent of the entire Gwent police force. Who is right?

David Cameron: The truth is that whoever was in government right now would be having to make cuts to police budgets. The Labour party is committed to a £1 billion cut in the police budget; we have made reductions in police budgets. The key to having police officers on the streets is to cut the paperwork, reform the pensions, and deal with the pay issues. We have the courage to do that, and the hon. Gentleman’s party should support it as well.

Mike Weatherley: Last weekend, the Squatters Network of Brighton and Hove invited its anarchist friends from around Europe to campaign against what they call Weatherley’s law. Will the Prime Minister condemn, with me, the Green party’s support for squatters and welcome, as I do, the criminalisation of squatting?

David Cameron: I certainly support what my hon. Friend says. This law was long overdue. It is very important that home owners have proper protection from people, in effect, stealing their property, which is what squatting is. It is a criminal act and it is now a criminal offence.

Keith Vaz: Last week, it was revealed that officials at the UK Border Agency received bonuses of £3.5 million. Given the horrendous queues at our airports, the fact that 100,000 files have now been archived by the UKBA, and the fact that in the past six months 185 people have absconded having been given limited leave to remain, does the Prime Minister agree that in future we should reward success, not failure?

David Cameron: I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. There is absolutely no place in the modern civil service for a presumption of good performance. I believe in paying people bonuses if they perform well and meet their targets, but if they do not perform well and do not meet their targets, they should not get a bonus.
	In terms of Heathrow and our airports, it is vitally important that we continue to make progress. This is an urgent issue for Britain. It is vital for our trade and vital for inward investment that people have a decent experience when they arrive at our airports. A new control room is opening at Heathrow this month, there are an extra 80 staff for peak times at Heathrow, and an extra 480 people will come on stream during the Olympic period, but I am still not satisfied as to whether we need to do more, including this week and next week, to really get on top of this problem.

Sajid Javid: My constituents in Bromsgrove are relieved to learn that the Government have already cleared one quarter of the record, irresponsible deficit left by the Labour party. They understand that you cannot keep spending what you do not earn, but what they would also like to know is: has the Prime Minister received just one quarter of an apology from the Labour party?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I notice that the Labour party did not want to go anywhere near the International Monetary Fund today. Perhaps that is because of something else that its director said yesterday: “You have to compare” the British deficit situation
	“against other countries which experienced severe deficit numbers, did not take action right away and are now facing very, very stressful financing terms that is putting their situation in jeopardy”.
	We would have been in jeopardy if we had not taken the brave steps that we took and very necessary they were too.

Nicholas Dakin: Electoral Commission figures show that the Conservatives have received more than half a million pounds already this year from people who have attended secret soirees at Downing street or Chequers. Is the reason why the Prime Minister is out of touch that he listens to those cliques, rather than to decent, hard-working people such as those in Scunthorpe?

David Cameron: There is a very big difference between the money that the Conservative party raises from business and individuals, and the money that Labour gets from unions, which determines its policies, sponsors its Members of Parliament and elects its leaders. They own you lock, stock and block vote.

Hon. Members: More!

Mr Speaker: Order. I am quite certain that Conservative Back Benchers wish to hear Mr Stephen Williams.

Stephen Williams: The coalition Government have restored order and stability to the public finances, and have therefore won us international confidence. Is not now the right time to put renewed effort and vigour into returning growth to the economy, by the Government facilitating and guaranteeing investment in housing and infrastructure?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I am sure that he welcomes the enterprise zone in Bristol and the support for the animation and television industries. What we need to do, both in Britain and in Europe, is to combine the fiscal deficit reduction that has given us the low interest rates with an active monetary policy, structural reforms to make us competitive, and innovative ways of using our hard-won credibility—[ Interruption. ] Which we would not have if we listened to the muttering idiot sitting opposite me—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. [ Interruption. ] Order. I am very worried about the health of the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), who is so overexcited that he might suffer a relapse. I am a compassionate chap, so I do not want that to happen.
	The Prime Minister will please withdraw the word “idiot”. It is unparliamentary. A simple withdrawal will suffice. We are grateful.

David Cameron: Of course; I will replace it with, “The man who left us this enormous deficit and this financial crisis.”

Sheila Gilmore: After six months in government, the Prime Minister announced that his Government had created 500,000 private sector jobs. After two years, he is giving us the figure of 600,000 jobs since the election. Why has the rate of growth slowed down so much?

David Cameron: There were 100,000 extra people in employment over the last quarter, and in the last two months we have seen repeated falls in unemployment and increases in employment. I would have thought that the hon. Lady would welcome that.

Eric Ollerenshaw: With unemployment down in Lancaster last week, I visited A & G Precision and Sons in Preesall in my constituency. It is a family-run company of only 40 employees that supplies components for the Hawk. It does high-precision work that is required nationally and internationally. I was told that it had turned two work experience places into full-time company-paid apprenticeships. Does that not show that things are moving in the right direction in Lancashire?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. I am sure he will be pleased, as well, with the order that BAE Systems had today from Saudi Arabia for Hawk aircraft, which is more good news for British jobs, British investment and British aerospace.

Frank Field: Some of our constituents would be hungry today if it were not for the work of Foodbank and similar organisations in our constituencies. If current trends continue, Foodbank reckons that by the next election it will be feeding half a million of our constituents. Might I therefore ask the Prime Minister, before he completes his engagements today, to plan what the Government might do to counter that terrible trend and report back to the House?

David Cameron: First, let me join the right hon. Gentleman in welcoming the work that Foodbank does. I have visited one of its sites myself to see what it does. What is absolutely vital in these difficult economic times is that we do what we can to protect the poorest people in our country. That is why we have frozen the council tax, increased the basic state pension and uprated benefits in line with inflation, which has protected the people who need protection the most. Yes, we have had to cut tax credits for those people on £30,000, £40,000 or £50,000, but we have actually increased the tax credits that the poorest people receive.

Philip Davies: The Prime Minister and I might not agree about everything, but we do agree about certain things. For example, we agree that I should never be promoted. [Laughter.] Another thing that we agree about is the need to put public sector pensions on a sustainable and affordable footing. In that context, judges are being asked to pay just 2% of their salary towards their pension, whereas the taxpayer pays 33%. That is neither affordable nor sustainable. Given the increases in pension contributions that we are expecting from other, lower-paid public sector workers, will the Prime Minister ensure that we apply the same tests and requirements to judges, too?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Judicial pensions have always been treated separately, because of what judges do for our country, but on public sector pensions more generally we have managed to—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is making a reply to a serious question. Let us hear it with a degree of respect and restraint.

David Cameron: There was going to be a separate judicial pensions Bill under the last Government.
	On public sector pensions more generally, we have reduced the future cost by half while maintaining a public sector pension system that is more generous than what people are able to access in the private sector.
	As for my hon. Friend’s earlier remarks, I have got plans for him.

Michael McCann: Prison officer—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to go into any of that, but I do want to hear Mr McCann.

Michael McCann: Prison officer Neville Husband abused young men in the Medomsley detention centre for decades before he was prosecuted and sentenced for some of his crimes. A constituent who was abused by
	Husband has given me information that suggests that senior figures in the establishment knew what was going on. The Crown Prosecution Service refuses to pursue these matters, and instead the Home Office has sought to issue compensation payments. Young men were detained by the state and then abused by the state. Does the Prime Minister agree that a full inquiry is necessary, to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done?

David Cameron: The first thing that the hon. Gentleman should do—I am sure he already has—is make sure that any evidence that he has of abuse, cover-ups of abuse or compliance with abuse is given to the Crown Prosecution Service and the authorities so that it can be properly investigated. The Home Affairs Committee, on which I sat, looked into the issue in years past and made a number of recommendations. I will look carefully at what he says and see whether there is more advice that I can provide.

Speaker’s Statement

Mr Speaker: I have a short statement to make. Colleagues will be aware that the Prime Minister has extended a formal invitation to Nobel prize winner and newly elected parliamentarian Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to visit the United Kingdom next month. At my request and that of the Lord Speaker, she has kindly agreed to address Members of both Houses in Westminster Hall on Thursday 21 June at 3 pm. Further details about applications to attend will be sent to Members in due course.

G8 and NATO Summits

David Cameron: I welcome your announcement, Mr Speaker. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is a remarkable woman, who for so many years has been effectively imprisoned in her own country. It is an incredible testament to change in that country that she is now able to travel and speak freely, including in this Parliament.
	With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the G8 and NATO summits, which I attended in America last weekend. The common theme across both summits was economic stability and international security.
	At the G8, we reached important conclusions on dealing with our debts, growing our economies and dealing with the risks in the eurozone. Let me take each in turn.
	Deficit reduction and growth are not alternatives. We need the first to deliver the second. There was absolutely no debate about this: it was my view, Chancellor Merkel’s view, President Obama’s view and President Hollande’s view. Indeed, France will balance its budget at a faster rate than Britain.
	In Britain, in two years, we have cut the deficit we inherited from the last Government by more than a quarter. Our approach has been endorsed again by the International Monetary Fund this week, and by the OECD. At a time of tight budgets, a proper growth plan requires not just a credible fiscal policy, which secures the low interest rates about which I was speaking just a moment ago, but structural reforms to make our economies more competitive, active monetary policy, and innovative use of our hard-won credibility to ensure investment in long-term infrastructure. We are taking all those steps in the UK and promoting them in Europe as well. In every area, we need to do more.
	Prime Minister Monti and I have gathered 10 other EU leaders to call for the completion of the single market in digital and services—classic structural reform to our economies. President Hollande is coming forward with creative proposals, such as project bonds, and, as the House knows, in recent months the European Central Bank has helped supply liquidity to European banks. I will pursue all those elements at the informal European Council tonight, and at the formal Council in June, after which I will of course make a statement to the House.
	Growing our economies also means doing everything we can to get trade moving. At the end of the G8 meeting, there was a serious and substantive discussion about the potential for an EU-US trade deal. The EU and US together make up half the world’s GDP. There is a huge amount of work to be done—and a further effort will be made and a report will be produced at the G20 next month—but that could have a positive impact on both sides of the Atlantic.
	The greatest risk facing the eurozone and, indeed, the world economy, is clearly the situation in Greece. The future of Greece is for the Greek people to determine. It is for them to decide what is best for their country. However, we cannot afford to allow that issue to be
	endlessly fudged and put off. The Greek election should in effect be a straightforward choice between staying in the eurozone—with the responsibilities that that entails—or taking a different path. The eurozone—and Europe as a whole—needs to have contingency plans in place for both eventualities. That should involve strengthening banks, protecting financial systems and ensuring decisive action by European institutions to prevent contagion. Whatever the outcome, this Government will do whatever is necessary to protect this country and secure our economy and financial system.
	Alongside the discussion on the economy, I had two further priorities at the G8: to continue the good work of the G8 on development, and to support the Arab spring and the promotion of democracy and reform.
	On development, the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition is an important initiative that aims to help 50 million people lift themselves out of poverty over the next 10 years. For countries to receive help, they need to show a real commitment to transparency and good governance. In return, they get substantial support to generate private sector investment in food production. I believe that that is a great combination of promoting good governance and helping Africa feed its people. I will be building on this with a major event on hunger during the Olympic games in the UK.
	Encouraging the private sector to create jobs is one of the best routes to sustainable, equitable growth in poorer countries. However, aid still has a vital role to play. For the first time in a decade the amount of aid given by the world’s richest countries to the world’s poorest countries has fallen back. Promises are being broken, and that is wrong. Britain continues to honour its commitments. Other nations should do likewise, and in the G8 that we will chair next year, we will once again produce the report that shows who has and who has not kept their promises.
	The G8 also reached important conclusions on Libya, Iran and Syria. Specifically on Syria, there was backing for the Annan plan, and for further UN measures if Assad does not change course. It was significant that the Russians agreed to that text.
	I raised Burma and the need to support the foundations of a lasting and irreversible transition to democracy. I want to make that a feature of our G8 next year. I am sure the whole House looks forward to welcoming Aung San Suu Kyi when she addresses Parliament next month.
	Let me turn briefly to the NATO summit. Some people write off NATO as a relic of the past, but I believe it is vital to our future security. The threats NATO countries face largely come from beyond our borders—from failed states, terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Because of that, it makes sense for NATO to be prepared, to link up with partners around the world, to act out of area, and to spend less on the weapons of past conflicts such as battle tanks and more on the technology needed for tomorrow’s conflicts. All those things were agreed at the summit.
	That is not to say that NATO should not take steps to defend Europe and north America—it should, and we declared at the summit that the interim ballistic missile defence capability to protect Europe is operational. It was particularly good to have a special session with the partners who work with NATO around the world, and in particular the 50 countries that make up the NATO-led alliance in Afghanistan.
	NATO’s military commanders set out the progress in the campaign. Attacks by insurgents are down and transition to Afghan control is on track. Over the next few weeks, we will reach the point at which 75% of the population will be living in areas where Afghan forces are in the lead for security. The vital next steps are to deliver the final stages of transition, and to continue the build-up of the Afghan national security forces and ensure they are properly funded for the future. Britain is pledging £70 million—$100 million—a year, but it is right that other countries should step up and contribute to the future of Afghanistan, irrespective of the role they have played so far. The summit marked a turning point in those contributions, with almost $1 billion being pledged to support the Afghan national security forces.
	Britain has played a leading role in the alliance for reasons of our own security. Three years ago, some three quarters of the most serious terrorist plots against Britain had links to Afghanistan and Pakistan. I am now advised that that figure has fallen to around a half. Our aim is an Afghanistan that is able to take care of its own security without the need for foreign troops, and an Afghanistan that can prevent al-Qaeda returning and posing a threat to us and to our allies around the world.
	The tremendous hard work of our courageous servicemen and women is making that possible. After 10 long years, they will finally be coming home. I pay tribute to them. Their service and their sacrifice is beyond measure. We remember in particular all those who have given their lives in this vital task to keep our country safe, and I commend this statement to the House.

Edward Miliband: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his statement. Let me start with the NATO summit. On Afghanistan, the Opposition welcome the summit’s confirmation that the transition of full security responsibility from the international security assistance force to the Afghan national security forces is set for completion by mid-2013, and that British combat operations are set to end by the end of 2014.
	Let me echo the Prime Minister’s words about our troops. They have served heroically in Afghanistan for more than a decade now, and we owe them enormous gratitude. I am sure I speak for the whole House and the Prime Minister when I say that we want to see them home with their families in the right way—one that respects the professionalism they have shown and the sacrifices they have made. To that end, will the Prime Minister give the House a clear indication of the timetable for the expected draw-down of British combat troops between now and 2014? Will he tell us how many British service personnel he expects to remain in Afghanistan after 2014 and which services they are likely to be drawn from, and will he confirm that they will remain under a NATO command and control structure? Will he also tell the House whether he has had discussions with President Zardari on the important issue of land access across Pakistan, which is so vital for British military and ISAF supplies?
	On the political situation in Afghanistan, does the Prime Minister agree that honouring the sacrifices and bravery of our troops means taking the political challenge
	there as seriously as we take the military challenge? Given that the final stage of the military campaign is under way, what concrete steps will now be taken that were not already in place before the Chicago summit to secure an inclusive political settlement within Afghanistan and between Afghanistan’s regional partners? Does he agree that the international community has talked for a long time about talks about talks on the political settlement we need, and that we need far greater urgency in seeking that settlement for when our troops come home?
	On the G8 summit, we join the Government in calling for an immediate end to violence to stop the continuing bloodshed in Syria, and I join the Prime Minister in his remarks on Burma.
	On the global economy, we desperately needed a plan for growth, for both Europe and the international community. The Prime Minister entertained Opposition Members with his description of President Hollande as his new best buddy, given that he endorsed the President’s opponent in the most fulsome terms. The Prime Minister told Le Figaro:
	“Nicolas Sarkozy has my support. I say it clearly.”
	The Foreign Office was a bit perturbed and started briefing about that, saying:
	“We put all the chips on one card and it turned out not to be the ace...It was an error of judgment and not what was advised”.
	Perhaps he will tell us whether he was advised to see President Hollande but twice refused to do so? The Foreign Office also said something that, after today, I think we can all concur with:
	“The Prime Minister has a habit of shooting from the hip.”
	That is certainly true.
	In reality, we did not get the conclusions and action we needed from the summit because the international community is divided—not united, as the Prime Minister said—between those who believe we must have a decisive shift towards growth, such as President Obama, now joined by President Hollande, and those who believe that the answer lies in more of the same, such as the German Chancellor and this Prime Minister. For two years he has been the high priest of austerity, telling the world that austerity alone is the answer, but now the recognition has dawned that it is not working, and he finds himself on the wrong side of the argument. That is why he is desperately scrabbling around to say that President Hollande is his great friend.
	What has the Prime Minister delivered at home? The recovery has turned to recession, there has been no growth for 18 months and 1 million young people are out of work. He was fond of quoting yesterday’s IMF report, but he did not quote this from Christine Lagarde:
	“Growth is too slow and unemployment—including youth unemployment—is too high.”—
	[Interruption.] Hang on a sec. I am getting to it. She continued:
	“Policies to bolster demand before low growth becomes entrenched are needed”.
	That is not his position. His position is: more of the same. So we have the ultimate irony of a Prime Minister who has delivered a double-dip recession lecturing other people on how to get growth.
	What did the Prime Minister actually achieve at the summit? We know some of the things he did. He watched the football—nice pictures! He went to the gym. He even squeezed in some sight-seeing. The only thing there is not a photo of is of him making a difference to the world economy—in other words, doing his job. At the G20 last November, he signed a communiqué stating that if “global conditions materially worsen”, countries will take action “to support domestic demand.” Well, global conditions have worsened, so where is the action for growth? Where is the decisive shift we need across the global economy? Why has he not delivered it? He has not delivered it because he does not believe in it.
	The Prime Minister is actually making things worse, not better. Last Sunday, the Chancellor went on television and said that speculation about the break-up of the euro was damaging Britain’s economy. He said that
	“it’s open speculation…about the future of some countries in the eurozone which I think is doing real damage”.
	Will the Prime Minister explain, then, why he decided to do just that last Wednesday and say, “Make up or break up”? It might have rhymed, but does he not understand that it did nothing to help our economy or anyone else’s?
	Given the seriousness of the position in Greece, does the Prime Minister really believe that for him to deliver an ultimatum to Greek voters over the weekend about their election was such a good idea? I would have thought that after his experience of the French election, he might have realised it was not such a good idea to get involved.
	Finally, on tonight’s European summit, euro bonds are important and a stronger firewall would make a difference, but the crucial thing is demand. Does he not accept that without a plan for growth and demand in Europe, we cannot get a solution on deficits across Europe that is either politically or economically sustainable? The problem with this Prime Minister is that he can only offer more of the same. He cannot be part of the solution because he is part of the problem. All he offers is more austerity. It is not working in Britain, and it is not working in Europe. It is a failed plan from a failing Prime Minister.

David Cameron: Five minutes and absolutely no plan! The Leader of the Opposition had nothing positive to say. It was a good joke about Sarkozy, but let me say this: we all have our faults, but I would rather have a reputation for being loyal to my friends than for knifing my brother.
	The right hon. Gentleman started with NATO and asked some serious questions, so let me give him some serious answers. He asked for a clear indication about the draw-down. We will go down to 9,000 troops by the end of this year. Clearly, we need to set out a pathway between now and the end of 2014. I want it to be based on the conditions on the ground and on how well the transition is going in the three provinces for which we are responsible. Obviously, I will keep the House updated on that. We do not want a great cliff edge at the end.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked what would be left at the end of 2014. We have made a clear decision on this. President Karzai asked us to provide an officer training college in Afghanistan and we will be doing that. We have the assistance of the Australians and the
	New Zealanders on that, and we hope that others will be joining in. That is the baseline of our commitment, but clearly we will listen to any other requests. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be a NATO-led operation in terms of training: yes it will, but there will not be NATO combat operations after 2014.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the relationship with Pakistan and about the vital issue of the ground lines of communication—the so-called GLOCs. It is essential that they are reopened. I spoke to Prime Minister Gilani about this when he visited the UK a week or so ago, and I spoke to President Zardari at the conference. I am confident that progress will be made but, frankly, it needs to be made more rapidly than is currently the case.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the political challenge, and he is right about that. I have said all along that, alongside the military surge, we need a political surge. We are working very hard with the Afghans and the Pakistanis to deliver that. We have made a very clear offer to the Taliban that if they lay down their weapons and join a political process, that process will be open to them. But we have to be prepared for the political process not advancing as far as we would like, and that is why we must ensure that the build-up of the Afghan national security forces goes according to plan so that we can hand over in good order, as I believe we will.
	I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about Syria and Burma. On President Hollande, let me make this point. President Hollande said something that I think the right hon. Gentleman should perhaps adapt slightly, then repeat. He said:
	“The national debt is the enemy of the left and of France.”
	We have never heard the right hon. Gentleman say anything as clear as that before. Let us look at what President Hollande is doing. When he was asked how he would stimulate growth, he said:
	“The means cannot be extra public spending, since we want to rein it in”.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about our approach on growth. We agree with the Italian Prime Minister that we need structural reform in Europe. We agree with the French President that we need a more active monetary policy in Europe. We agree with the German Chancellor that deficit reduction is vital in getting interest rates down. The problem is that Europe has not had all three, but we support all three of those things.
	Finally, I would just say to the right hon. Gentleman that nobody I can find in Europe, not even the left-wing party in Greece, backs his idea of putting an extra £200 billion of borrowing into the British economy. That is the Labour policy. It would put up interest rates, it would wreck our economy and it would wreck our prospects—which is exactly what Labour did in office.

Peter Tapsell: Did anyone at the G8 summit emphasise that the basic cause of the economic and political crisis in Europe was not the Greek debt but the single European currency and its lack of a lender of last resort, which is now a threat to the global stability of the banks? May I put it to the Prime Minister that, until the leaders of the great nations grasp that fact and act upon it, the turmoil in Europe will continue?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, which is that a single currency requires an active, interventionist central bank behind it. That is something that we have been saying for a very long time, and it is one of the reasons I have always been sceptical about the single currency. There is a growing realisation that, alongside plans to deal with deficits to provide fiscal credibility, there is a need for a more active monetary policy. That is what we have in the UK, with our single currency across our nations, and if Europe is to have a working single currency, it needs that sort of monetary policy too.

Alistair Darling: While I welcome the change of rhetoric over the weekend, particularly from the Prime Minister, in recognising that austerity alone will not work—at least, from his point of view, in Europe; he might apply that here, too—will he tell us whether the German position has changed at all? It does not seem to have done so, but until it does, I shall find it hard to believe that the eurozone can come up with anything convincing or credible before the Greek elections on 17 June.

David Cameron: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and he raises absolutely the right point. I would say that the German approach is changing, to an extent, because the Germans know that alongside deficit reduction plans, in a single currency, there needs to be greater co-ordination of that single currency. Their concern is that they do not want to take their foot off the deficit reduction until they have more of a political system around the single currency. I understand their concern. This is one of the reasons that I never wanted to join a single currency; I have always believed that a single currency involved a sort of single economic government. The struggle is to try to convince countries in Europe that, alongside deficit reduction, they need a more active monetary policy, a European Central Bank that stands behind the currency, and the structural reforms, such as completing the single market, that we have always argued for.

John Redwood: I welcome the emphasis on growth. Does the Prime Minister agree that the Bank of England and the banking regulators in the UK need to amend their method of operation to ensure that sufficient money and credit are available to fuel a private sector-led recovery, rather than simply providing more cheap money for the state? Could they not learn from America, which is doing that very well, in order to avoid the problems that Europe is being plunged into by doing it far worse than we are?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. When I say “active monetary policy”, I do not simply mean a central bank that engages in quantitative easing, or whatever. We need to ensure that all the monetary institutions of a country, including its banks, are properly capitalised and properly working. Around Europe, there is a lot of work that needs to be done on that.

Gerald Kaufman: With regard to the Prime Minister’s discussion with the President of Pakistan, does he deplore Barack Obama’s offensive discourtesy towards the President, the sovereignty
	of whose country the United States has violated with deadly effect? Will he confirm that Britain stands shoulder to shoulder with our Commonwealth partner in defying American colonialism?

David Cameron: I have to say that I would not put it like that. We need to work very closely with our American allies, within our special relationship, to try to deal with the terrorism that has come out of Afghanistan and is still coming out of parts of Pakistan. It is in our national interest to do that, but I always urge all international friends and partners to show patience and understanding with Pakistan because it is the biggest victim of terror of all. It has complex politics, and it needs to be given the space to resolve some of those issues. It also needs to know that its friends, such as Britain, will not leave it after the Afghan conflict is over, and that we are there for long-term partnership, friendship and support.

Simon Hughes: Of course I associate myself and my colleagues with the tributes to our serving forces, particularly in Afghanistan, and to those who have given their lives. On the global economy, will the Prime Minister continue to make it clear that, although we are not in the eurozone and should not wish to join the eurozone, it is in our interests that we support the other countries in Europe that are in it—including, as the Father of the House said, by supporting their structural reform? Does he also agree that an increase in the internal market across Europe is in their interest and ours, and that construction at home is the best way of creating the growth that we need in this country as an immediate priority?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. It is in Britain’s interests that the problems in the eurozone are dealt with. We have consistently made a whole series of suggestions about firewalls, about strengthening banks and about consistent and strong contingency plans. The point that I was making at the weekend is that it has become ever more urgent to make those contingency plans because, frankly, it is not in our power to determine whether Greece decides to stay in the eurozone. We have to prepare for every eventuality, however difficult that might be.

Hywel Williams: This morning, the European Parliament passed, by a very large majority, a call for a financial transactions tax. Can the Prime Minister foresee what his stance, and that of other leaders, will be on that matter this evening?

David Cameron: My view is very simple: I am against a financial transactions tax, for the simple reason that the European Commission did a piece of research into such a tax and found that it would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs. While it might sound as though it would tax the bankers and all the rest of it, it would actually put up the cost of people’s insurance policies and pension policies and drive all that activity offshore. I am not surprised that some other European countries support it, because they see it as a good way of taking a lot of tax out of the UK and spending it in Europe. Well, I am not falling for it.

William Cash: There is increasing pressure for political union between certain member states. Whether this is achieved by enhanced co-operation, by separate intergovernmental treaty or by other stealth measures, does my right hon. Friend accept that, irrespective of the European Union Act 2011, such a fundamental change in the relationship between such member states of the European Union and the United Kingdom would necessitate a referendum?

David Cameron: I do not agree with that position. I think the right position for the UK is to say that we should hold a referendum only if power were to pass from Westminster to Brussels or if we were to join some new treaty or political construction that involved the passing of that power. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, that the single currency clearly has within it the seeds of greater political union, so we have to work out—in this country, in our coalition and in the Conservative party—how to respond to that and how to get the best deal for Britain as the situation develops.

Bob Ainsworth: The Prime Minister talks about the continued importance of NATO and about some of the things that have been agreed, but the agreed changes are largely peripheral and the need for reform is profound. Is there not a danger that the understandable focus on the economic crisis is sucking the life out of the need for reform in NATO? Will he focus on that? Notwithstanding the understandable needs of the economy, will the Prime Minister make sure that the change programme that is so badly needed to get decent interoperability within NATO does not lose its momentum?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge of this subject. I would be a little more optimistic: one NATO reform, which I know he would welcome, aimed to cut the bureaucratic and headquarters posts around Europe. To be fair to Secretary-General Rasmussen, he has done an excellent job in delivering that. We have also delivered the ballistic missile defence in interim capability, which is another important step forward for NATO. Where I am perhaps more optimistic than the right hon. Gentleman is that I think the reality of the situation will drive us towards reform. Everyone faces tough budgets, and the fact that America is now providing almost three quarters of NATO’s funding and assets is unsustainable, so other countries are, frankly, going to have to step up to the plate, look at their arrangements and co-operate more, as we are with the French, to deliver more of the teeth and less of the tail.

Nicholas Soames: May I warmly endorse the Prime Minister’s view that NATO is vital to our security and congratulate him on the very positive role he played at the summit as the leader of one of NATO’s most important countries? Does he agree that the Secretary-General’s programme for smart defence is key to the future reform of NATO and that the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) spoke a great deal of sense?

David Cameron: I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. The truth is that there is duplicated defence capacity all over Europe, much of which is not deployable.
	We need all countries to undergo the difficult and painful things we have done in strategic defence reviews to work out what weapons and systems are needed for the conflicts of the future, recognising that NATO is less likely to fight land invasions and much more likely to have to deal with failed states and terrorism, so the needed capacities are different. Even that will not be enough, as we then need a lot more co-operation—particularly, I think, between the leading members of NATO, which is why we are working so closely with the French—so that we can deliver complementary capabilities and get more done as a result.

George Mudie: With the aim of achieving growth, the IMF specifically recommended yesterday that UK banks slow their acquisition of capital buffers, thereby making more money available to British businesses and small businesses. Do the Government agree with that recommendation, and will they work with the Bank of England to implement it as soon as possible?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. This is a difficult issue to get right. We are rightly discussing two problems: the need for growth, and the need for financial stability and ensuring we are safe, with the headwinds of a potential eurozone storm approaching. I think the best approach is to work hand in glove with the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority to get that balance right. That is what the Government will do.

Richard Ottaway: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his stamina, as I calculate that by this evening he will have done three summits in two continents in five days. I reiterate the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth). We have to impress on NATO members that the conclusion of the Afghanistan campaign is no justification for cutting defence budgets. It is essential to have a full-blooded review of NATO strategy, with a full-blooded commitment from all its members.

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about my summitry. By the end of tonight, that will be enough summits for quite some time, although the G20 will soon catch up on us. What he says about NATO is right. We need reviews from all NATO countries, which need to go through their budgets and work out what is necessary for national defence. We need to ask what more we can all do to make sure that NATO has the capacities it needs for the future.

Nigel Dodds: I endorse what the Prime Minister said about the importance of NATO to our national security and the need to spend more on the technology of tomorrow. Cyber-terrorism poses an ever-greater threat. Will the Prime Minister assure us that within NATO intense focus will be devoted and resources given to that big and growing problem across the world?

David Cameron: One of the things the UK did in the strategic defence review was to invest some of the savings made—from memory, I think it was £900 million—in a cyber-defence programme. That is being
	co-ordinated with GCHQ, but also involves the private sector. We hope to work with other NATO members on that capability to make sure that we share best experience and endeavours, and that should lead to savings for us and for others.

Peter Bone: The euro is as dead as Monty Python’s parrot: it is no more, it has ceased to be, it has expired. So why do the euro elite continue to claim that it is alive and well? Is it not essential that Europe implements an orderly break-up of the eurozone before the markets force an economic tsunami?

David Cameron: Like my hon. Friend, I have always been a genuine euro-sceptic—sceptical about the euro—which is why I did not want to join it. We have to recognise, however, what is in this country’s interest, which is for the eurozone to sort out its issues and difficulties. I believe that will involve greater fiscal transfers and it must involve eurobonds over time. As I have said, it involves a more active monetary policy in Europe. We should encourage our European partners to go down this road to make sure that their system works properly. There are real dangers from disorganised exits from the euro. It is not just that countries would devalue, which would have an impact on us, as we have to think about the impact on financial institutions and banks around Europe, including on British banks. It is very important that the eurozone takes the necessary steps to put in place the contingency plans to keep it safe.

Dennis Skinner: Now that the Prime Minister is lecturing Greece about the need for growth and that we need a little bit in Spain and the eurozone, so he says, for the sake of clarity can we get to the bottom of growth here? Will he repeat these words after me: “I’m going to drop the austerity plan and go for growth in Britain”? Now’s your chance.

David Cameron: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I deeply regret that my last encounter with him was perhaps a bit sharper than it should have been, and I hope he will accept my apology. He is a tremendous ornament to this House, and that will always remain the case. I do not agree with him because I think a deficit reduction plan is necessary to deliver the low interest rates we need, which are essential for growth. I make the point again that when this Government came to power, our interest rates were the same as those in Spain. Today, ours are less than 2% and Spain’s are over 6%. One reason for that is that we have a credible fiscal policy.

Andrew Selous: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an absolute cast-iron assurance that while he is Prime Minister this country will never, ever join the euro—unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who seems very open to the idea?

David Cameron: I am very happy to give that pledge. I note that the Leader of the Opposition said that whether we joined the euro would depend on how long he was Prime Minister; I am not sure which prospect is the more terrifying.

Alison McGovern: Young people in Merseyside see their friends suffering from a lack of opportunities, and they feel distressed when they see
	huge unemployment rates among young people in Greece and Spain. Will the Prime Minister say specifically what discussions he had with G8 colleagues about infrastructure development as part of a global plan for growth?

David Cameron: We did discuss the issue of infrastructure development, because I think that it can be part of what needs to be done. The rise of unemployment is tragic in any country, but the figures in Greece, Spain and elsewhere in southern Europe are eye-watering: 50% of young people are unable to find work.
	As I have said, I think that the elements of the plan that we need are the fiscal credibility that provides low interest rates and the active monetary policy that supports demand in the economy, as it has in the UK, but combined with structural reforms. There is a need for proper structural reforms in Greece and other countries so that they can have competitive economies. The extra element is using the credibility that we have earned, and the strength of the Government’s balance sheet, to try to deliver innovative finance to infrastructure and credit. That is obviously an option that is open in Europe as well, and I think that it is what President Hollande is referring to when he talks about project bonds. Those are the elements of a growth plan. We have them all in the UK, and we need them in Europe as well.

Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when we look at the scale, and the time scale, of the burden that fell on what was then West Germany at the time of German reunification, we have a sense of the awesome challenge that would face any German Chancellor trying to achieve fiscal union in Europe?

David Cameron: Yes, I think that my hon. Friend is entirely right. Some people imply—it was implied in the question from the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling)—that German stubbornness is unreasonable. It is understandable. Obviously, for the success of the eurozone we need everyone to adopt approaches such as those I have described in terms of monetary policy, eurobonds and the rest of it, but it is important to understand people’s motivations and difficulties, because they are what lie behind the current impasse.

Chris Bryant: It is good that the Russians shared in the motion on Syria, but even if we leave aside the rigged elections in the Russian Federation, there are still major human rights abuses in Russia. For instance, Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s second trial has been universally condemned by every international organisation in the world and, indeed, by many organisations in Russia. He tried to secure an appeal, but it was turned down only last week by Judge Alexander Voronov, who is not an ordinary judge but a military judge in the military chamber of the Supreme Court. When the decision was handed down that there could be no appeal, it was done on the Russian armed forces website. Does that not show that Russia has a great distance to go before it can really embrace being part of the humanity of nations?

David Cameron: We discuss the importance of freedom, human rights and democracy regularly with Russian colleagues. When I visited Russia, I met civil society organisations to discuss precisely those issues. However, I think that it is very worthwhile to have Russia in the G8. When we are discussing issues such as Iran and Syria, in which Russia has an interest—and, frankly, we want it to join in the efforts we are pursuing—I think that it is helpful to have the Russians there.

Jo Johnson: In the absence of progress towards a global trade deal through the Doha round, an EU-US deal could be a decent second-best if it meaningfully reduced tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. Can the Prime Minister give an indication of a plausible time frame for the conclusion of such a deal, and perhaps also an indication of how much the UK economy in particular might benefit from it?

David Cameron: I think that there is still something salvageable from the Doha round—all the elements of trade facilitation, such as helping to reduce customs times and charges, rather than the bigger Doha package—and I think that we should pursue that. We had a conversation at the end of the G8 in which we agreed to go away and look at our “issues paper” for the G20, and to establish whether there was a small enough distance to be closed between the EU and the US to make a deal worthwhile. I am very hopeful. Britain is one of the most open trading nations. There are real concerns on both sides—obviously there is a French position on agriculture, and an American position on many services and other issues—but I think that we will have a good look at this at the G20 and see whether we can fast-track it.

Denis MacShane: Is the Prime Minister aware that Greece spends 50% more on defence than ourselves, France or Turkey, and is the biggest arms importer in Europe? Is he aware that the Greek shipping industry, which accounts for 7% of Greek GDP, and the Greek Orthodox Church, which is the biggest land and property owner, do not pay a penny in tax? When he talks to the Greek Prime Minister, will he ask him to scale down defence spending and get the oligarchs and the Orthodox Church to pay a little bit to solve the Greek crisis?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. However much one can look at the Greek situation and feel for the people who are suffering as a result of unemployment and living standards, there is a crying need for genuine reform in Greece, and for more straightforward and honest politics when it comes to dealing with those problems. That means making sure that people do pay their taxes, and making sure that industries are competitive.
	The issue of defence spending is obviously more complex because of the relationship between Greece and Turkey, but as we are now both NATO members and Turkey is an aspirant EU nation, there should be an opportunity to decrease Greek spending on national defence, while of course encouraging it to be a good NATO member at the same time.

Matthew Hancock: At the G8 summit, did any of the leaders advance the argument that dealing with the deficit and supporting growth were alternatives, or did they argue that it was necessary
	to bring about growth through monetary policy, by supporting the banks and by getting trade going? Did anyone advance the argument that it was necessary to borrow one’s way out of debt?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Absolutely no one suggested that dealing with deficits and securing growth were alternatives. They are complementary: we need both. That is the view of everyone around the G8 table. There is only group of people who have their heads in the sand and are complete deficit deniers, and they are the people who gave us the deficit in the first place.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister rightly drew attention to the level of youth unemployment in Greece, which is more than 50%. More than a quarter of adults are unemployed, and the economy is set to contract by a further 6% in the current financial year. The Prime Minister has preached austerity in this country and all around the world. That is exactly what has been done in Greece, and that is exactly what the result has been. Is the Prime Minister prepared to put pressure on the European Central Bank, in so far as he can, to stop the austerity oppression in Greece and start supporting the needs of ordinary people who have worked very hard and do not deserve this misery?

David Cameron: This is where I part company with the hon. Gentleman. In this country, we have consistently said “You need to have deficit reduction, which delivers low interest rates and enables your central bank to pursue an active and expansionary monetary policy”—which is what we have had in this country—“and at the same time you need the structural reforms to ensure that your businesses are competitive and can take on more people and grow.” That is what we are seeing in Britain, with 600,000 more private sector jobs. It is a world away from what is happening in Greece or in many other parts of the eurozone, which do not have the monetary policy accompanying the fiscal policy and which have not undertaken the structural reforms we are undertaking.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the biggest threat to our country at present is indeed the crisis in the eurozone, but almost parallel with that is the possible pending crisis in the middle east. Given that a very important conference begins today in Baghdad, did my right hon. Friend manage to find time at the weekend to emphasise to the Russian and Chinese leaders the importance of their role in trying to ensure a peaceful outcome of the Iranian situation?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. A good portion of the G8 was spent discussing the situation in Iran, and specifically discussing the talks that are under way in Baghdad today. It was heartening that the Russians signed up to a pretty tough text on Iran, and I think that the path is very clear. Europe has rightly adopted the oil sanctions, and the pressure is beginning to tell on the Iranian economy. This is the moment at which to maximise the pressure, to encourage other countries around the world to join in with the sanctions, and to say to the Iranians “There is a different pathway. You can have civil nuclear power; you can have a more decent relationship with other
	countries of the world; but you must give up the ambition of enriching uranium to such an extent that it could deliver a nuclear weapon to you.”

Derek Twigg: Whatever the structural deficiencies and other problems that exist in Greece and have existed there for a number of years, this problem was not caused by that; it was caused by the banking and economic crisis in the world, and the way in which the eurozone has dealt with it. The suffering and austerity in Greece is on a completely different scale from what we have even envisaged in this country, and it is untenable for it to continue. Will the Prime Minister go back and ask the euro partners—not least, of course, the Germans—to think again about what we can do to bring about a different plan there? I remind him that Greece is a very proud nation. It is a very important ally of ours, it stood by us alone in 1941 against the Nazis, and we should do what we can to help it.

David Cameron: Of course I agree that Greece is an important ally. Relations between Britain and Greece are very strong, and the historical analogy the hon. Gentleman draws is absolutely right. I do not agree, however, that the problems in Greece are caused only by the euro or by the banking crisis. There are deep and profound problems in the Greek economy that need to be dealt with. There must be the right combination: there need to be deficit reduction plans; there needs to be an active monetary policy; there need to be reforms to the eurozone; and there need to be structural reforms. In the end, however, it will be for the Greek people to decide whether they want to do these things inside the eurozone our outside the eurozone. Clearly, a disorderly exit would be very bad for Britain, and we should do everything we can to avoid that, but we need to plan for every eventuality and have proper contingencies in place.

John Baron: In the absence of much-needed supply-side reforms in the eurozone, I suggest a day of reckoning is fast approaching. Given that since the second world war there have been 80-plus cases of countries leaving a currency bloc and the vast majority of them have benefited from that, does the Prime Minister think that we are fast approaching a time when we should stop talking about the need to save the euro, because it can create uncertainty and hit confidence and investment in this country?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I am not entirely sure I agree. There are, of course, examples of countries that have left currency pegs, and suffered in the short term but then recovered. There have also been countries that split their currency in two; Czechoslovakia managed that process well. There is a substantial difference, however, between such cases and situations where there is a potential breakaway from a currency zone with a single currency. That is a different situation because the banks are so intertwined. That is why we must think very carefully about the contingency plans for such situations.

Jim McGovern: The Prime Minister paid tribute to the troops who have come home from Afghanistan. Recently, my wife, Norma, and I welcomed a Black Watch battalion home to Dundee. Can the Prime Minister assure me, current serving personnel in
	the Black Watch, Black Watch veterans, my family and my constituents that on his watch there will always be a Black Watch?

David Cameron: I very much want us to keep the regimental structure; that is very important. At the same time, however, we need to deliver this big change in our armed forces—which, actually, will deliver a larger Army, but also a better balance between a professional Army and a territorial Army. We are looking at exactly how that can be done, while saving the important regiments about which people rightly feel so strongly.

Mary Macleod: At the G8 summit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed development, with the aim of lifting 50 million people out of poverty in the next 10 years. May I therefore urge him to do even more in respect of microfinance as a way of creating sustainable economies over the long term, and to use charities such as the MicroLoan Foundation in Chiswick, which gets a 99% return on the money it gives to women in Africa to create businesses for themselves and their families?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are, of course, committed to aid and development, and to expanding the new alliance for food security and nutrition programme that Barack Obama launched. Microfinance is important because it not only helps to grow small businesses, but it empowers women, which can make an enormous difference to the success of development.

Keith Vaz: Was there any discussion about the situation in Yemen? The Prime Minister will know that on Monday a bomb exploded in the middle of the unity day celebrations, killing 96, and this morning aid agencies have said that half the population is going to starve to death. I appreciate what the Prime Minister and his Government—and successive Governments—have done. However, while the Prime Minister has made Burma a priority for his chairmanship of the G8—I also acknowledge your role, Mr Speaker, in championing the cause of Burma—can he not also find a little space for Yemen, because a stable Yemen is in our interests? If we do not support that country, al-Qaeda will take it over and it will bleed to death.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I absolutely agree with him on this. At the G8 summit, I talked about the next G8 and said it was very important that we address the security and development priorities of the future. I think both Yemen and Somalia fall squarely into that bracket. The recent hideous bomb attack and loss of life in Yemen was extremely distressing. We must focus a huge amount of effort on the country. A development effort is going in: I think the Department for International Development will today announce an investment of £26 million in that country. We must also give an enormous amount of national security assistance to the country, and I discussed that in my bilateral with President Obama.

Andrew Stephenson: May I echo what the Prime Minister said about our brave servicemen and women, who continue to strive to bring peace and
	stability to Afghanistan? Sadly, agreement was not reached on reopening the supply routes through Pakistan. Will the Prime Minister comment further on that, and on the role of Pakistan as a key ally in our efforts to leave Afghanistan on a stable footing at the end of 2014?

David Cameron: That is a key point. We need to ensure we have northern routes as well, of course, and I had a good meeting with the President of Azerbaijan to discuss that issue. On Pakistan, Members are absolutely entitled to feel frustrated. We are enormous aid donors to Pakistan, and we have a very strong relationship with the country. It is frustrating that the lines of control are still closed, but there are ongoing discussions and I am confident they will be reopened. We have to show an understanding about how this country has suffered from terrorism, about the complexities of its politics and about the need to show real respect for its sovereignty and its democracy. The message we must give to both Afghanistan and Pakistan is that long after this war is over, we will be there supporting both of them as strong independent countries, diplomatically, politically, through trade, through aid—through all the means we have—and we will not desert them.

Meg Hillier: In a recent visit to Nigeria, I saw at first hand the great opportunity for agri-investment in that amazing country. However, the all-party group that I chair has heard a lot from British businesses about the logistical challenges and security concerns of investment in Nigeria. While the new alliance for food security and nutrition is a good step, what support will the Prime Minister pledge to British companies looking to invest there, so we get the win-win of both growth in British business and food and jobs for Nigerians?

David Cameron: When I went to Nigeria and met the UK Trade & Investment team in Lagos, I was hugely impressed by its work and its dedication, and also by the incredible links between British Nigerians and Nigerian British, as it were, working between the two countries. We work very closely with the Nigerian Government on security, because there are considerable security challenges, particularly in the north of the country. Security training and counter-terrorism co-operation between the UK and Nigeria can help produce major dividends both for that country and for trade and investment.

Alok Sharma: Given that increasing exports to emerging economies needs to be a key part of the growth strategy of many of the G8 nations, will the Prime Minister update us on any discussions he has had with other European leaders on progress on the pending free trade agreement between the EU and India?

David Cameron: We had a number of discussions about the free trade agreements. There is a series of such agreements: the Indian one; the Canadian one; the chance of getting one going with Japan. My view is that all of them are good news. The Korean one has been a success, and we need to drive them all forward—and we are certainly in the vanguard of doing that.

Mark Lazarowicz: May I echo the comments of those colleagues who expressed concern at the scale of the cuts and the retrenchment being forced on Greece—the ordinary people of Greece, not the Greek Government? While I agree with the Prime Minister that there need to be structural reforms and the changes he has suggested, would it not be better to have a bit more flexibility—a bit more European solidarity—rather than end up forcing Greece into a situation that leads not only to the collapse of that country, but immense consequences for the eurozone and the entire world economy?

David Cameron: Obviously, we are not a participant in the eurozone bail-out of Greece. We are supporting Greece through the IMF, however. The hon. Gentleman must consider this point: other European and eurozone countries, some of which are not particularly rich themselves, have had a series of agreements with Greece about what needs to be done and what money will be put in, and effectively he is asking them to go back repeatedly to their own Parliaments and say, “Well, I promised I wouldn’t ask for any more for Greece, but here I am again asking for more.” That is very challenging for them. As I have said, in the end it will be for the Greek people to decide, in their election, whether they want to stay in the euro and keep to the undertakings they have given, or whether they want to choose a different path. We in this country must be clear that we should support all and any contingency plans to make sure that either scenario can be safely delivered.

Robin Walker: The Prime Minister cited in his statement the extraordinary statistic that the EU and the US together make up more than half the world’s gross domestic product. Does he accept that this may well be the last generation for whom that is the case, and that it is therefore more vital than ever that we reach out further and faster into developing markets to support our exporters and build on our strengths as a country?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right that the share of world trade and the share of the world economy taken by the EU and America together is likely to decline as that of China and India rise, but I was always taught in business that going back to one’s best and biggest customer to get that extra deal is often a very good strategy, so we should be thinking exactly about that in terms of EU-US trade.

Hugh Bayley: At a time when defence budgets are constrained right the way across the alliance, is it not important for NATO itself to demonstrate, in the same way as its member states, that every pound it spends is well spent? Will the UK therefore support proposals being considered by the NATO secretariat to ensure that the external audit service for NATO is entirely independent of NATO, that accounts are published in a timely fashion—say, within six months of the year- end—and that they are available for parliamentarians in this and other Parliaments in NATO states to scrutinise, in the same way that we scrutinise our own defence expenditures?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman, who has great knowledge of these things, makes a series of sensible suggestions and we should look carefully at
	them. Let me again commend Secretary-General Rasmussen for what he has done in reforming the huge number of command posts and headquarters posts in NATO. I suspect that there is more to be done on that front, as well.

Julian Smith: Currently, Britain has only some 3% of the European market in services. Can the Prime Minister confirm just how important completing the services market is for British services?

David Cameron: On completing the single markets in digital, in services and in energy, each of them can add, I believe, more than a percentage point on European GDP. The services market is particularly important because it is an area that Britain excels at—not just financial services but everything, including construction and architecture. On opening up services in other countries, a number of countries are currently in breach of their undertakings, so the pressure for this, particularly in countries such as Germany, should be very great.

Geraint Davies: We all know the expression, “Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day; give him a rod and he can eat for life.” Therefore, why is some of the money being used to pay down the debt in Greece and not instead being invested in solar forests across Greece so that they can provide Europe with energy; being invested in rail links, so that people can travel between Greece and other European countries and thereby boost tourism; and being invested in universal broadband, so that we can connect Greece to the world? We have a politically acceptable and economically sustainable solution, instead of putting half a fish on the table, leaving the Greeks hungry and angry by lunch time.

David Cameron: The Greeks have had a very special deal—an enormous private sector haircut on their debt, through which creditors have been asked to take a share of the burden. The money that Greece has received in the last decade from the European Union could have gone into many of the projects that the hon. Gentleman points out. Part of the problem in parts of the eurozone is that the early years of the euro saw wage rates and unit costs of labour rise, rather than their being fundamental changes to make these countries more competitive.

Glyn Davies: It seems that there is a strong possibility that Greece will be forced out of the eurozone, and we are obviously concerned about the impact on the economy that a disorderly exit may have. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to hold discussions with our European partners and develop contingency plans to ensure that such an exit has the minimum possible impact on the United Kingdom?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Obviously, this is not something we want to see happen, and it is in our interests that the eurozone deals with its issues, strengthens its firewalls and strengthens its banks, and that we start to see the high interest rates in parts of Europe come down. But it would be irresponsible not to prepare proper contingency plans, and that is what the Treasury and others have been doing. As I say,
	whether Greece stays in the euro or not is not within our power, and we must prepare for all eventualities; but obviously, a disorganised exit would cause real difficulties.

Dan Jarvis: Our country has invested a lot in Afghanistan—a lot of sacrifice and a lot of resource. So, along with many others, I am increasingly concerned at the lack of progress in the critical issues of politics and governance in Afghanistan, which, by nearly all accounts, are getting worse, not better. Will the Prime Minister therefore pledge to re-energise this process in order to give Afghanistan the best chance of surviving as an entity post-2014, ensuring that our efforts and sacrifice are not wasted?

David Cameron: I respect the hon. Gentleman’s views, not least because he served in the military and knows about what he speaks. Regarding the political surge in Afghanistan, he is perhaps being a little too pessimistic. In Helmand province, the area for which we have been responsible, we have seen the excellent Governor Mangal make some real steps forward in governance. There are district governors in almost all the province now, and we have seen a huge amount of progress in wheat seed distribution, building schools and hospitals and providing basic levels of service. But clearly we need to do more, and what happens politically and in terms of reconciliation will determine the nature of the outcome we achieve in Afghanistan.

Iain Stewart: I welcome the declaration at the NATO summit on the interim ballistic missile defence system. Russia, however, remains hostile to the scheme. Has progress been made in persuading Russia that the scheme’s primary point is to protect Europe from ballistic missile threats from rogue nations, not from Russia?

David Cameron: Obviously, it is still a difficult discussion between NATO and Russia, but I think there is a level of understanding that the point of having a ballistic missile defence shield is to protect Europe from potential threats, including, for instance, Iran. It is important to remember that this is not instead of nuclear deterrence—it sits along side nuclear deterrence, which remains a key part of our defence posture.

Andrew Love: The International Monetary Fund confirms in its article IV report published yesterday—if we needed it confirmed—that plan A is not delivering growth. It has also made a number of suggestions and recommendations, many of which have been discussed in the Chamber today, and some of them will be implemented in the coming months. The report goes on to suggest—recommend, even—a plan B to boost growth and temporarily cut taxes. Is the Prime Minister listening?

David Cameron: I listen very carefully to what the IMF says, and to me, two things stand out. First, it says that reducing the high structural deficit over the medium term remains essential and that the UK has made substantial progress towards achieving a more sustainable budgetary position—alongside saying that the situation
	we inherited made the IMF shiver. Secondly, and importantly, it forecasts that the UK will grow faster this year than France, Germany or the eurozone, so it is predicting that things will improve, not get worse.

Bob Blackman: As our brave troops come home from Afghanistan, one of the key issues is the long-term sustainability of the Afghan economy. In the past, its biggest export has been the poppy crop, which has fuelled the illegal drugs trade worldwide. However, that self same product could be used to alleviate medical suffering worldwide. What consideration has been given to purchasing the poppy crop, so that we can use it for beneficial medical aims and sustain the Afghan economy as well?

David Cameron: I have looked at this issue in some detail. The key thing is that if proper governance, proper rule of law and proper transport networks can be delivered in a country, then what might be done with its ability to grow poppy might be considered; that is what happened in Turkey. But I have a feeling that if a poppy-purchasing project were suddenly introduced now, rather like in “Blue Peter”, you would buy one and they would produce another one they had made earlier, so I do not think it would work. But I do believe that the Afghan economy can develop, and that is one of the reasons that we are spending a serious amount of money not just on supporting the Afghan national security forces but on economic development in Afghanistan, and clearly, that will be key to its future.

Seema Malhotra: Recently, I had a meeting with Afghan Sikhs in my constituency. Under the Taliban, they were forced to wear yellow ribbons and were prohibited from cremating their deceased loved ones. They have raised with me grave concerns about their freedom in the future and women’s freedom in Afghanistan. Can the Prime Minister update the House on any discussions that took place in Chicago on minority rights and women’s rights, so that we do not see a rolling back of social progress?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady raises a very important point. I had a good meeting with President Karzai in Chicago, and one of the points I made to him was that the quality of Afghan democracy, Afghan rights and Afghan justice will be absolutely key in delivering success. The Afghan constitution does guarantee some basic rights. That is why we say that, of course, if the Taliban put down their arms and stop fighting, they can discuss a future political role, rather as IRA-Sinn Fein have done in Northern Ireland, but they have to accept the basic tenets of the Afghan constitution.

Amber Rudd: I am immensely proud of the commitment to international aid made by this country, but I am concerned about the levels of some of the other members of the G8. May I urge the Prime Minister to use next year’s presidency to remind some of the other members of their Gleneagles commitment?

David Cameron: I would be delighted to do that. One of the strengths of the G8 is that it produces this accountability report, and I will make sure that a copy is put in the Library of the House of Commons because
	it is very compelling. It really holds countries to the promises they made about aid, about spending and about the different bits of that spending. People can see it there, in black and white: who has met their promises and who has not. We will continue to do that next year.

William Bain: There are nearly 25 million people unemployed across the EU at the moment, and economic demand is continuing to fall in the eurozone and in this country, whereas in America it is rising this year. Will the Prime Minister therefore follow the lead of the US and Japanese Governments, and the advice of the IMF yesterday, and bring forward much-needed capital spending to boost infrastructure and get the construction sector off its knees?

David Cameron: We have said that we want to use the hard-won credibility we have, the low interest rates we have and the strong national balance sheet we have to encourage that private sector investment. We have made a series of important announcements about housing, including backing mortgages of up to 90% loan to value to try to get the housing market working again, because the housing market is not functioning. I would just say that if we look at America’s deficit reduction plans, we find that it actually has plans to reduce its deficit faster than we do.

Gavin Williamson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the G8 decision to create the capital markets access initiative will help Arab spring countries to tap into international capital markets, bringing them both stability and prosperity?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I think it is still a net bonus to the world that there has been the Arab spring, and we need the wealthy countries of the world and the European Union to get behind it. One of the problems we face is that those north African and Arab countries that have set themselves free were told in the past that they had experienced a free enterprise economy, whereas in fact they had really been having a sort of crony capitalism economy. We need
	to work very hard with them to encourage them to take a path that will make sure that their economies grow for the future.

Mark Durkan: I welcome the Prime Minister’s alert on the levels of aid going from the richest to the poorest countries. In following through on the commitment to sustainable hunger reduction, will he promote more support for smallholder farmers, who number more than half the world’s 1 billion hungry people, so that they and their families can grow and eat more and better food, can trade produce and can employ others, thus helping communities to thrive?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point; part of the presentation given to the G8 by the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition was that through the proper use of fertilisers and of things such as exchanges, we can actually make sure that smaller farmers become more sustainable, grow their yields and can not only feed their families, but build a small business.

Mr Speaker: Last, but not least, we must hear from the voice of West Worcestershire, Harriett Baldwin.

Harriett Baldwin: I was so pleased to hear the Prime Minister announce a day for discussing global hunger during the Olympics. Does he agree that the agenda should cover not just food security and food production, but the hidden crisis of malnutrition, which literally stunts the growth of so many children around the world?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It just seems to me that while we have the eyes of the world on Britain for the Olympics—and many African leaders will be coming to support their Olympic teams—we have a good opportunity to bring people together to say, “Here we have a great initiative in the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. Let’s take it to the next level. Let’s encourage more countries to join. Let’s make sure that we lift more people out of hunger and out of poverty.” But the point she makes about nutrition is absolutely crucial for the future of the planet.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Prime Minister and colleagues.

Public Appointees (Tax Arrangements)

Danny Alexander: As hon. Members are aware, in February I announced a review of the tax arrangements of public sector appointees. I said that I would report back to the House on the results of that review, which is what I would like to do in this statement today. As I said at the time to the House, there is absolutely no place for tax avoidance in government. That is especially so at a time when money is tight and we all have to pay our fair share to help tackle the deficit.
	As I told the House in February, senior civil servant appointments are audited against the Treasury’s “Managing Public Money” guidance. That document states that
	“public sector organisations should avoid using tax advisers or tax avoidance schemes as any apparent savings can only be made at the expense of other taxpayers or other parts of the public sector.”
	That is why when questions were raised about the tax arrangements for senior public service appointees, I immediately put this review in place, and I would like to thank the investigative journalists at ExaroNews for bringing the issue to our attention.
	The review looked at the extent of off-payroll engagements in Government Departments and their arm’s length bodies. With respect to the NHS, the review was limited to the boards of NHS organisations. None the less, the “Managing Public Money” guidance, and the new principles that I will set out today, apply in full to the NHS. The review could not include either local government or the BBC, which are not under direct control from central Government—it will be for those organisations to justify their own off-payroll arrangements, in the light of the unprecedented transparency we are showing today. Nor does it include devolved Administrations, and I hope they will now also follow the example we are setting.
	Let me be clear to the House: the review published today did not seek to identify evidence of tax avoidance—that is the role of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The review looked at off-payroll engagements, because the opaque nature of those engagements has created the conditions where tax avoidance could be taking place. Let me also make it clear there are circumstances where it may be necessary and appropriate for an employer to appoint an individual off payroll—for instance, where Departments need to employ specialists to carry out short-term roles when there is no available civil service expertise. That practice will continue. However, the review has revealed the extensive and long-standing nature of off-payroll engagements in government. I can tell the House that the review has identified more than 2,400 off-payroll engagements in central Government Departments and their arm’s length bodies that were live on 31 January this year. That is an unacceptable number, given the lack of transparency on the tax arrangements of these contracts.
	That lack of transparency cannot continue, so today each Department involved is publishing on its website a list of off-payroll appointees who, as of 31 January, were engaged at an annual cost to the Department of more than £58,200. The majority of cases relate to technical specialists; in fact, more than 40% relate specifically
	to IT specialists. The data also show that 70% of cases relate to arm’s length bodies. About 10% of the cases relate to payments made directly to a personal services company. More than 85% relate to intermediaries such as employment agencies, where it is not possible to know whether the individual is or is not using a personal service company. The other 5% relate to the self-employed, who are therefore subject to self-assessment in the normal way. About 70% of all those in the identified cases are paid more than £400 a day, and more than 70 cases cost Departments more than £1,000 a day. About 900 of the cases—approximately 40%—date back longer than two years. In fact, more than 20 cases date back more than 10 years, which some might consider an astonishing length of time to be on a contract. It is also worth noting that since January this year, more than 350 off-payroll contracts identified by this review have since ended. In about 10% of those cases the individual remained with the Department but is now on the payroll.
	It is clear that off-payroll engagement without sufficient tax transparency has been endemic in the public sector for too many years. It is a problem that built up and was presided over by the previous Government. Indeed, it is likely that under their watch many more thousands of cases of off-payroll payment have come and gone, yet no one said a word.
	The solution to the problem is not to turn a blind eye or brush it under the carpet. We must bring an end to the “don’t ask, don’t tell’ approach to the issue and it is clear that the tax arrangements for off-payroll employees in the public sector are not as transparent to the employer as they should be. At the moment, contracts with off-payroll employees do not give Departments the right to request detailed tax assurance from individuals; nor can HMRC provide that information due to taxpayer confidentiality. Even when off-payroll employees are in fact paying the correct amount of income tax and national insurance, the employer has no means of reassuring themselves that that is the case. It is right that we should tackle that lack of transparency.
	Today I can announce new tighter rules on off-payroll appointments. First, the presumption is that in the future the most senior staff must be put on the payroll. Secondly, all Departments must put in place provisions that allow them to seek formal assurance that anyone paid a senior rate and employed off-payroll for more than six months is meeting their income tax and national insurance obligations in full. If that reassurance is not provided when requested, Departments should terminate the contract.
	Finally, these new tighter rules will be monitored carefully and any Department that does not comply will be fined up to five times the cost of the salary by the Treasury. In addition to those changes, we have shared all the detailed information from the review with HMRC, which will be able to take any further action it decides is necessary in individual cases. There will be no lengthy transition period for the new rules, either. They will be implemented by September this year and will be applied to existing contracts too, subject to value for money. Departments will report to Parliament on the outcome as part of the 2012-13 annual report and accounts process.
	There is one further measure I want to announce today. Working through an intermediary provides an opportunity to minimise, or in some cases avoid completely,
	paying income tax and national insurance that would otherwise be payable. We already have anti-avoidance legislation, commonly known as IR35. That rule ensures that where there is in effect an employment relationship, if it was not for the interposition of a personal service company, the person concerned pays the appropriate amount of tax and national insurance. The rule is a vital tool in tackling tax avoidance and helps to ensure that people pay the right amount of tax.
	Let us take as an example an individual earning £120,000 a year. In that instance, there could be as much as a £23,000 difference between the amount of tax and national insurance paid compared with that paid by somebody on the payroll. When IR35 was introduced 10 years ago, it was comparatively rare for controlling persons of an organisation to work through a personal service company. In the past few years, however, there have been high-profile reports of that happening, so today the Government are also consulting on the Budget proposal that all so-called “controlling persons” must by law be on the payroll of their organisation. This proposed tightening of the rules will apply to any organisation, be it public or private. It is right that when an individual is in a position to control the major activities of an organisation, they should be on the payroll of that organisation.
	At a time of tight public finances, it is vital that everyone pays their fair share. The changes I have outlined today help to ensure that senior public staff pay, and are seen to pay, their full and fair share of income tax, and they demonstrate yet again the Government’s determination to clamp down on all forms of tax avoidance. I commend the statement to the House.

Rachel Reeves: I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement and for providing advance notice of it. We welcome this review of the pay and tax arrangements of senior public servants.
	At a time when ordinary families and businesses are bearing the brunt of the recession that this Government have created and at a time when more than 700,000 jobs in the public sector are being cut while ordinary public service workers who keep our NHS, schools and police services running have had their pay frozen and their pension contributions increased, people will be shocked that more than 2,000 senior public servants, many earning several times the average public sector wage, have been paid in a way that allows them to avoid paying their fair share of tax, and that 1,200 of these deals have been done by the present Government in the past two years.
	The vast majority of working people in this country have no choice over how or whether to pay the tax that they owe and they will feel that those who benefit from the highest public sector salaries have a special responsibility to make their proper contribution to the funding of the public services on which we all rely and to which they owe their generous salaries. We should all be clear that if the taxpayer is paying someone a living, particularly a better living than the vast majority of taxpayers enjoy, that person has a duty to pay their fair share of tax and the Government have a duty to ensure that they do so.
	The statement is a valuable step towards greater transparency and accountability and we welcome that, but I have a number of questions that I hope the Chief
	Secretary can answer today. First, on the question of the chief executive of the Student Loans Company, we now know that he was appointed at a salary significantly higher than that of his predecessor and that he potentially avoided paying around £42,000 annually in tax, an amount almost twice the average public sector salary. Will the Chief Secretary tell us which members of the Government agreed to the arrangement made with the chief executive of the Student Loans Company and which members of the Government were aware of the arrangements before the matter came to the public attention in February? Have changes been made to his payment arrangements since then and can we be assured that he is now paying his full share of income tax and national insurance? If not, when can we have that assurance? If his contract has been altered, has there been any cost to the taxpayer in doing so?
	The Government committed to publishing details of all public servants paid more than £150,000, yet the chief executive of the Student Loans Company was not on the list published in 2011 despite, as we know, earning £182,000 and despite the fact that his predecessor was listed. Will the Chief Secretary explain why the chief executive’s name was not on that list and can he tell us if any other public servants paid more than £150,000 have not been listed so far and whether they will be listed in the 2012 publication?
	Secondly, on the subject of the extent of the problem and the scope of the review, will the Chief Secretary confirm how many such deals were signed off since February, when the affairs of the chief executive of the Student Loans Company came to light? Will he confirm that those individuals paid more than the Prime Minister will have been personally approved by the Chief Secretary? How many has he personally approved? If any did not come to him for approval, can he explain why?
	The review’s findings cover only people who earn more than £58,000, which is more than twice the average annual salary in this country. Will the Chief Secretary tell us why his review excluded anyone on less than £58,000 a year, and if he will return to the House with findings that include all such cases? In those cases where a public servant was not being paid on payroll, were the individuals concerned paying their proper share of income tax or national insurance? What was the cost to the Exchequer of those arrangements?
	Despite the emphasis on transparency, the findings presented today do not include local authorities, non-maintained schools, public broadcasting authorities or other publicly owned companies. Those areas account for a substantial portion of the public sector pay bill. When will the Chief Secretary come to the House with figures that cover those areas? It is not enough for him merely to encourage the publication of that information by others.
	The findings also do not cover publicly owned banks. I think that taxpayers who have paid to rescue those banks would expect those employed by the banks to be paying their tax at the appropriate rate. Will the Chief Secretary conduct a review of the extent of such arrangements in the publicly owned banks?
	The findings also do not cover privatised or contracted-out services. Does the Chief Secretary think that those earning large incomes from taxpayer-funded contracts should be expected to pay their proper share of tax, and what steps will he take to ensure that that is happening?
	Thirdly, as regards what the Government will do next, the Chief Secretary has told us that there will be a new presumption that the most senior staff must be on the payroll. How does he define “the most senior staff” for those purposes? Will he give a clearer definition of the exceptional circumstances in which he will allow some public servants to continue receiving their salaries off the public sector payroll? Will he give an undertaking that those cases for which those exceptions have been made will be made public and that the exceptional reasons for them will be given?
	In future cases, will Departments be allowed to seek assurances about the tax affairs of public appointees with off-payroll arrangements, or will they be required to do so, as this morning’s news reports imply? If they will not be required to do so, why not? Why not have that duty to seek such assurances?
	Where these arrangements are disallowed for current or future appointees, can the Chief Secretary give us his assurance that their salaries will not rise to compensate them for the loss of net income that may result? Can the Chief Secretary confirm that in accordance with previous commitments given on transparency and accountability, all those covered by the review whose earnings exceed £150,000 will be included in the Government’s annual list of people earning more than this figure?
	On the wider issue that the Chief Secretary mentioned—how IR35 laws are used to avoid tax beyond the public sector, which clearly needs to be addressed—can he guarantee that HMRC will have sufficient resources to monitor, manage and enforce the full payment of taxes at a time when it is being asked to absorb £2 billion-worth of cuts to its budget?
	In conclusion, the Government need to ensure value for money for every pound of taxpayer money spent, especially at a time of wage restraint for nurses, teachers and police, and huge cuts in the number of people working in the public sector, so the Opposition welcome the Chief Secretary’s commitment to rein in the avoidance of tax, but I hope this will apply to all those who are paid by the taxpayer, and that there will be genuine transparency in pay and in any exceptions to the rules set out today.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for the shadow Chief Secretary’s welcome for the steps that I announced today, though it was striking that in her response there was no reference at all to the fact that many of these arrangements date back to the time of the previous Government. About 40% of the cases identified began work under the previous Government.
	If the hon. Lady wants to know more about why those arrangements came into place, she could ask her Front-Bench colleagues if they were here. She could ask the Leader of the Opposition, for example, as two cases date back to his time as Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. She could ask the shadow Home Secretary, as nine cases date back to her time as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. She could ask the shadow Health Secretary, as 45 cases date back to his time as Secretary of State for Health. She could ask her colleague the shadow Chancellor, because at least 24 cases date back to his time as Secretary of State for Education. Yes, it is once again their mess and we are cleaning it up.
	The hon. Lady asked a few questions. With reference to the chief executive of the Student Loans Company, as I said in answer to the urgent question from the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) in February, the individual concerned went on the payroll straight away—that day. I announced that at the time of that statement, which I think the hon. Lady responded to. Of course, going on the payroll was the appropriate thing to do. As I made clear then, I had no knowledge of any tax benefit to an individual. As is the practice with cases where those involved are earning more than the Prime Minister’s salary, the approval is given within the Department. My role as Chief Secretary is to examine the salary level to make sure that it is consistent with the pay restraint that we are properly putting in place across the public sector.
	This review looked at the salary level above £58,200 because that is the minimum salary level in the senior civil service, and it focused on senior public service appointments. These rules will be available for Departments to apply more generally, should they wish to do so. As I said in my statement, the review was not looking for evidence of tax avoidance because individual tax arrangements are a matter of taxpayer confidentiality, but all the results of the review from across Government have been passed to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs so that they can investigate if they choose to do so.
	I referred in my statement to organisations that are not within the control of central Government, such as local authorities, the BBC and so on, but I am sure the many Labour councils around the country will have heard the shadow Chief Secretary’s remarks and will be bringing forward as a matter of urgency transparent publication of all the arrangements in their local authorities. I look forward very much to seeing that.
	In relation to IR35, I should remind the House that in the spending review we provided an additional £900 million to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs specifically to focus on their work tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance. That will include resources to investigate cases caught out by the review or cases under IR35. The hon. Lady will know that the Office of Tax Simplification looked at the operation of IR35 last year and we are carrying forward some of its recommendations, but the proposal on which we are launching a consultation today—that controlling persons in organisations should, as a matter of course, be on the payroll—will strengthen the IR35 regime, which I hope Members on both sides of the House will welcome.

Alec Shelbrooke: I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend’s statement, taking note of his comments regarding the BBC. A great number of my constituents pull their hair out at the huge salaries paid to people at the BBC, only to see them invest them in companies outside to try to avoid tax. Will the IR35 regime go some way towards trying to address the situation?

Danny Alexander: The arrangements at the BBC are a matter for the BBC. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport has drawn the review to the BBC’s attention, so it is aware of the focus that the Government are placing on the issue. IR35 potentially applies to any taxpayer in the relevant set of circumstances, whether that individual works for the BBC or for any other organisation.

Margaret Hodge: I welcome the Chief Secretary’s statement and I join him in congratulating David Hencke on the work that he did in uncovering the situation. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he and his officials will co-operate with the investigation that my Committee will now undertake on his review?
	Will the Chief Secretary comment on the fact that HMRC authorised the payment to the Student Loan Company’s chief executive under this arrangement? What instructions has he given to HMRC to deal differently with exceptions, which he is still allowing? Scope matters. Although his review has looked at the senior civil service, it matters how people are paid, whether they work in NHS trusts or for private companies delivering public service funded through the taxpayer’s pound—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The right hon. Lady is not asking a series of questions. This is a statement. I have given her considerable latitude, given her seniority, but I think she has asked enough questions now. Perhaps she should leave some for other Members who are rising.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) for her questions. Certainly, Treasury officials will co-operate with the investigation which I gather her Committee will undertake into these matters. I welcome that because, as I said in my statement, it is important that the light of transparency is shed on the issue as much as possible. I am sure that her Committee can play an incredibly valuable role in that, as it always does. I gather that the role of HMRC may be the subject of a soon-to-be-forthcoming report from her Committee. No doubt that will speak for itself, but of course the rules that I am putting in place today and the rules that exist for managing public money should be applied by all Departments in relation to public service appointments, and I made clear my view about the particular case that she referred to when I responded to the question from the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown).
	I agree that scope matters. I should say in relation to the NHS that although the review looked at board members in NHS organisations, because I wanted it to be done quickly so that we could bring forward recommendations and change the practices across the public sector, its recommendations will apply across the NHS and will need to be applied there in the same way as in any other part of the public sector.

Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend stress an important assurance which I think he made, that HMRC will continue to be blind as to whether they are dealing with somebody who works for the public sector or the private sector, that all people will be treated equally by HMRC, and that for the most part in his statement he was speaking as an employer? In his review of IR35, will he take great care not to catch up with musicians, artists and others who are traditionally regarded as self-employed but may have controlling roles in organisations? It would be a great mistake if we made the cost of employing those people, particularly international people, much more expensive, to the detriment of the arts in this country.

Danny Alexander: I can assure my hon. Friend that HMRC is completely blind as to whom any individual works for. Taxpayer confidentiality is an essential part of the way in which HMRC works and we are making no changes whatever to that. We have passed the information that we discovered through the review to HMRC. It will be for it to decide whether it wishes to make any further inquiries. That will be a confidential matter for it to pursue in its own right. This is not an overall review of IR35; it is a particular consultation in relation to controlling persons of organisations. I am certain that the point that he raised will be noted and perhaps brought forward by him or others in responding to the consultation, which opens today.

Nick Brown: The Chief Secretary deserves credit for his handling of the issue since it came into the public domain. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), I pay tribute to him and to the investigative journalists, David Hencke and others, who first drew it to our attention. It makes no difference whether those arrangements were agreed by Labour Ministers or Ministers in the coalition; they are wrong and he is proceeding in the right way to put a stop to things. Can he tell the House roughly the cost of unwinding the arrangements and whether that cost will fall on the individual Departments from within their existing allocations, or whether some supplemental allocations will be needed? Can he also say when the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills first knew about the arrangements for the head of the Student Loans Company and what he did to bring them to an end?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments and for his role in bringing these matters to the House’s attention. I wholeheartedly agree that it makes no difference when the arrangements started and which Minister was responsible; frankly, the situation has grown up over a number of years and under Governments of different hues. It is right that we are taking action to bring the situation under control and ensure proper transparency so that there is no perception of the potential for tax avoidance. He and I agree 100% on that.
	It is impossible to say at the moment what the costs, if any, of unwinding the existing arrangements will be. Of course, as I said in my statement, senior people must be brought on to the payroll, unless there are exceptional short-term circumstances. For others, we need arrangements in place that allow assurances to be given that the proper and full amount of tax is being paid, and that will depend on the outcome of those processes with individual members of staff. Of course, if there are costs to be borne, they will have to be borne from within existing departmental allocations. If Departments do not comply with those rules, there will be a fine of up to five times the salary involved, levied by the Treasury on departmental allocations, which I hope will give Departments a strong incentive to comply with the rules as quickly as possible.

Stephen Williams: My right hon. Friend and his colleagues have done some very important work in bringing these arrangements to light, but is it not the case that someone should be engaged in this way only in circumstances where there is a genuine short-term
	shortage in government of a particular expertise or if the individual genuinely has a wide portfolio of private sector clients unrelated to other public sector work? Is not what is needed an emphatic statement from him that these arrangements should be not commonplace, but truly exceptional?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and his welcome. He is right that the arrangements should be exceptional and unusual, and should apply only in particular cases, such as when there is a short-term shortage, as he says, or a particular specialism is needed to deliver a project. That is why so many of these cases relate to IT professionals delivering individual projects. There is an employee test under the IR35 rules, which I am told is simple and straightforward, and that should be sufficient for determining on which side of the line someone sits.

Alan Campbell: It is now clear that some of the worst cases take place in local authorities such as North Tyneside. Can the Chief Secretary not do more to direct HMRC not only to deal with these abuses, but to seek redress?

Danny Alexander: I am interested to hear that there are particularly egregious offenders in North Tyneside and am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing that to the House’s attention. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has of course drawn this process to the attention of all local authorities precisely to get them to show a transparency similar to that which we have shown with the review today, and I very much hope that they will all follow that example. It is for HMRC to decide whether it wishes to investigate an individual case and whether there is a case to answer. As I have said, the existence of these arrangements does not in itself demonstrate that tax avoidance is taking place, because it is perfectly possible for the arrangements to be in place and for the proper amount of tax to be paid. The problem is a lack of transparency, so getting people to publish the information so that HMRC can decide whether it wishes to investigate must be the right process to go through.

Bob Blackman: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Everyone wants to see public servants paying their right and fair share of tax. I respect the fact that he cannot investigate the tax affairs of all the individuals concerned, given the scale of this activity and the length of time it has been going on for, but what estimate has he made of the total loss that would be caused to the Exchequer if all these people used this legal means to avoid paying tax?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s welcome for this work. I am sure that he would not wish Ministers to investigate the tax affairs of individuals, as that way would lie ruin for the country. I cannot make such an estimate for the reason behind my previous comment: taxpayer affairs are confidential and it is for HMRC to deal with particular cases when it finds that avoidance is taking place. What I can say is that there is a very large number of cases and that this relates to the wider question of consultancy and contingent labour in government. He might be interested to know that in 2009-10 the previous Government spent £2.4 billion on
	contingent labour of various sorts. In 2010-11, thanks to the additional controls on consultancy that we put in place, we reduced that to £1 billion, and I expect the bill to be reduced further in 2011-12. There are things that central Government can do to reduce dramatically those costs across government, and that is precisely what the coalition Government are seeking to do.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement and commend him for the action he has taken since the scandal became apparent. If we are to believe that Revenue and Customs is now boarding this Good Ship Lollipop, how will we know whether someone receiving amounts of money from the public purse over £58,200 in future will not exempt themselves simply by ensuring that they accumulate it from a number of Departments rather than one? The measures he has announced today relate to Departments reporting amounts over £58,200 that they are paying to individuals, but they do not seem to address the issue of people pocketing money from a number of contracts with different Departments.

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question, and he is right that someone might be earning small amounts of money from a number of different Departments. Of course, in that case it is likely to be a contractor, of the sort my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) referred to, who has multiple clients. It is not clear on the face of it that these rules should apply in those cases, but I will certainly consider the sort of case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

David Winnick: As someone who is not involved in a vendetta against the BBC, unlike some Tory Back Benchers, I can tell the Chief Secretary that, as a result of correspondence with the director-general of that organisation, I have been informed that there are just two full-time employees left at the BBC, both very high-earners, on personal service contracts and that that will end in July, which is certainly welcome. Why is it so difficult for the Treasury to close the loophole, whether in the public or private sectors, so that unless it is a genuine company there can be no way in which individuals pay less tax than they should be paying?

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about the BBC, which is useful information for the House to have before it. I say to him in all seriousness that the rules relating to this sort of case—the IR35 rules—were put in place by the previous Government, and we are seeking to strengthen them through the consultation we have today. The coalition Government have done more than many previous Governments to take action on dealing with tax avoidance and evasion across the board, because it is vital in a time of austerity that everyone pays their fair share, and that is what we are doing. Frankly, it is what the Government of whom he was a part did not do.

Nigel Dodds: I welcome the Chief Secretary’s statement, but should we not apply the rules to all individuals receiving money from the public purse, rather than allowing the BBC, local authorities and others off the hook? I fear that, unless they are forced to take this action on transparency,
	all sorts of obstacles will be put up. I know from correspondence with the BBC in Northern Ireland that it has not been as transparent there as it has been elsewhere. In fact, it has stonewalled and refused completely to give information to me as a Member of Parliament, so I urge him to go further and force organisations such as the BBC into transparency.

Danny Alexander: The new Treasury rules that I have announced today apply only to organisations under central Government control. That is how the rules work, but I encourage the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who have made the point about local authorities to continue their campaigning in order to ensure that those organisations do reveal such information. He did not refer to the Northern Ireland Assembly Government, but he may very well want to take steps to ensure that that organisation also brings forward the appropriate degree of transparency about its arrangements, too.

Andy Slaughter: The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is right to admit that without the work of Exaro and “Newsnight” he would not have
	a clue what is going on across Departments, but the action that he has announced today will affect no more than a tiny percentage of the abuse taking place throughout the public sector. He needs to do more than write letters to the NHS and to local government. One so-called consultant, Mr Nick Johnson, has received £1 million from Hammersmith and Fulham council in the five years since he retired on an ill-health pension of £60,000 a year from another local authority. On the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s figures, Mr Johnson would have avoided £200,000 in tax, so when is the right hon. Gentleman going to act on such abuse?

Danny Alexander: The hon. Gentleman refers to the national health service, and I was very clear in my statement and in my response to the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, that the rules apply throughout the national health service and, indeed, to academy schools. I do not control the finances of local authorities, but I can make it very clear that I want to see them go through a similar process, and I am sure that campaigning local MPs such as the hon. Gentleman will not rest until their local authorities do so.

Point of Order

Elfyn Llwyd: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It became public over the weekend that the Prime Minister and several Cabinet members are to be coached by lawyers at a cost of £1 million before they give evidence to the Leveson inquiry. Given that some of us thought the whole point of the inquiry was to get at the unvarnished truth about the unhealthy relationship between some politicians and the media, should not a Minister come forward to explain who is training whom, why it is necessary and who on earth is paying for that excess?

Dawn Primarolo: That is not a point of order for the Chair with regard to the conduct of business, but the right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member, and I am sure that he will go to the Table Office and explain the information that he seeks. Perhaps the office will advise him on how he might pursue it, but it is not for today in the Chamber.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Secretary Vince Cable, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Theresa May and Norman Lamb presented a Bill to make provision about the UK Green Investment Bank; to make provision about employment law; to establish and make provision about the Competition and Markets Authority and to abolish the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading; to amend the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002; to make provision for the reduction of legislative burdens; to make provision about copyright and rights in performances; to make provision about payments to company directors; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read  a Second time tomorrow, and  to be printed (Bill 7) with explanatory notes (Bill 7-EN).

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

[Relevant documents: The Tenth Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Session 2010-12, on Individual Electoral Registration and Electoral Administration, HC 1463, and the Government’s response, Cm 8245.]
	Second Reading

Dawn Primarolo: Mr Speaker has selected for today’s debate the amendment, which will be moved in accordance with normal procedure.

Mark Harper: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Electoral Registration and Administration Bill will tackle electoral fraud by speeding up the introduction of individual electoral registration—that is, requiring electors to register individually rather than by households. In doing so, we will move towards a system in which individuals have to provide information to enable their application to be verified. That will modernise our electoral registration system, facilitate the move to online registration and make it more convenient for people to register to vote. We want to tackle electoral fraud, increase the number of people registered to vote and improve the integrity of the electoral register.

Denis MacShane: This is a very early intervention, but 23,388 of our fellow citizens living abroad are entitled to vote, while 1,147,401 French citizens will be voting in the French parliamentary elections next month. Why do we deny that core citizenship right to so many of our fellow citizens simply because they do not live within the UK? I am not sure that the situation is within the purview of the Bill, but it represents a shameful denial when other countries are so much better than we are.

Mark Harper: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. There are about 5 million British citizens overseas, and there is a debate to be had about the length of time—currently 15 years—that one should remain entitled to vote. Of the 5 million citizens overseas, only 30,000 or so are registered to vote, and for those who have been overseas for less than 15 years there is no bar at all on voting.
	There are questions to be asked of all of us about why those people do not feel the urge to register and to cast their vote in our elections, but in part 2 of the Bill, which I shall come on to later, we are going to lengthen the period of a general election campaign, making it more practical for overseas voters to receive and to cast a postal vote so that it counts in an election. I hope that that will be helpful.

Dan Rogerson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in our deliberations. The point about overseas electors bears a great deal of exploration. If they are not going to participate, alongside citizens who are still resident, in the democratic process and in our constituency-based system, will more information be provided to political parties and to independent
	candidates about how to contact overseas electors? The information that has been on the electoral register up until now would not allow for much discussion or interaction with them.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point—to which we might return in Committee, given that I have not got very far with my speech and want to make a little progress before I take any more interventions.
	As I was saying to the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane), part 2 also contains provisions to improve the administration and conduct of elections, thereby serving to increase voter participation and to make a number of improvements to the running of elections.
	Before I explain the rationale behind our proposals, I shall deal briefly with the Opposition’s reasoned amendment and approach.

Graham Allen: Before the Minister turns to the burden of his argument, may I congratulate him on how he has involved the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform and the House in the deliberations on the Bill? It is an exemplar of good practice, but he will see from the reasoned amendment that there is still some way to go. May I also put on his agenda the question of fines for people who do not register? They will be introduced under secondary legislation, so at the moment we have no idea whether an effective and proportionate fine will be available. Will he address that in his remarks?

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the Committee’s Chairman for what he says, and I hope that by the time I finish my remarks the House will see that I have addressed satisfactorily all the points in the reasoned amendment, at which stage I will of course urge Members on both sides of the House to support the Bill’s Second Reading.
	We debated this subject on an Opposition day in January during which I welcomed the tone that the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) adopted. He said, for example, that he welcomed the process that the Government had adopted and how we were acting; he noted that we had had a draft Bill and a White Paper with pre-legislative scrutiny; and he noted that the Deputy Prime Minister and I had said that we would not just listen to concerns, but act on them and make changes accordingly.
	At the time I noted that that was a shift from last autumn, when the right hon. Gentleman’s party leader said, in response to our making registration individual rather than household, that the Labour party was going to go out and fight against the change, and when the shadow Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), said that our proposals were
	“a shameful assault on people’s democratic rights.”
	I thought that that was nonsense when she said it. In January, the right hon. Member for Tooting appeared to think so, too, and he adopted a sensible tone that was welcomed not just by me, but by Members on both sides of the House, so I am disappointed that in tabling this reasoned amendment he appears to have reverted to the Labour party’s original approach.
	One of the main points in the reasoned amendment that I will not cover later in my speech is the assertion that there was cross-party support for the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. As I said in January’s Opposition day debate, it is true that we supported the proposals in the Act for individual registration, but it is worth reminding the House that the previous Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to include them. They were not in the Bill when it was introduced in this House, and that is why we voted for a reasoned amendment. In fact, they were not in the Bill when it left the House of Commons, although by that stage the Labour Government had made a commitment to include them. They were, however, introduced in the other place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), now Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, who led for us on the issue, ably assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), said:
	“I am glad that at the eleventh hour the Government have, at last, agreed to move ahead with individual voter registration, albeit in what still seems to be a lamentably leisurely time scale. They committed to the principle of individual voter registration many years ago, but a bit like St. Augustine, they seem to be saying, ‘Make me chaste, but not yet.’”—[Official Report, 2 March 2009; Vol. 488, c. 695.]
	My right hon. Friend made it clear that we approved of the decision to proceed with individual registration, which we thought could be accomplished earlier. We said that it would be our intention to do so, and on page 47 of our 2010 manifesto we made a commitment to
	“swiftly implement individual voter registration”.
	It is not fair and right, or at least it leaves out something quite important, to say that there was complete cross-party consensus on that measure.
	Before I set out the Bill’s provisions in detail, let me explain the rationale on how we got to this stage following the draft proposals and the significant amount of pre-legislative scrutiny that has taken place. The move to individual registration was supported by all three main parties in the previous Parliament and was in each of their manifestos. It is supported by the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators and has been called for by a wide range of international observers. We remain one of the few countries in the world to rely on a system of household registration. I believe, as I am sure many Members do, that a system that relies on the rather old-fashioned notion of the head of household, whereby just one person in the house is given the responsibility of dealing with everyone else’s registration to vote, is out of date. It does not engender any personal responsibility for being registered or promote a person’s ownership of their own vote, and it could give that one person the ability to disfranchise others. That is not the approach that we adopt in other areas where people engage with the state.

David Evennett: I welcome what my hon. Friend is endeavouring to do in this Bill, particularly his determination to modernise our system and to get more people registered to vote. Does he share my concern that many people are on the register who should not be, and, in particular, that people who do not have leave to remain in the country are participating in voting? Will that also change under his system?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend is right. There are two aspects to what we are doing. We want to make sure that the register is more complete and that people who are eligible to vote are on it, but it is equally important to make sure that those who are not eligible to vote are not on it. I hope that he will be reassured about that as I set out some of the details. On his specific point, there will be changes to make it clearer for people to identify when they are a Commonwealth citizen and what their immigration status is. We will be piloting some work with the UK Border Agency to see whether we can create a systemic process to check people’s leave to remain so that only those who are entitled to be here are able to vote here. That will be a welcome step forward.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Minister give way?

Karen Buck: rose —

Mark Harper: Oh, I have a choice. I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Nigel Dodds: The Minister said that the United Kingdom is one of the few countries that does not have individual registration. Of course, we have had that in Northern Ireland for some 10 years. I think it has been a success, and I therefore warmly welcome his proposals. However, it has led to a drop in the number of people registered, partly for the reasons that he outlined—for example, because some people should not be on the register in the first place. Will he take on board the lesson that we learned in Northern Ireland, which was that resources needed to be put into the Electoral Office to ensure that young people, in particular, got signed up to the register?

Mark Harper: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. I should have said that the Bill implements these measures in Great Britain rather than in the United Kingdom. We have learned a great deal in Northern Ireland, for example on implementing a carry-forward provision to reduce the risk of a significant drop-off. Interestingly, the research that we commissioned from the Electoral Commission, which was published last year, demonstrated that although we in this country have had the rather complacent attitude that we did not really have a problem, under the individual registration system in Northern Ireland, the proportion of eligible voters registered to vote is about the same as it is in the rest of Great Britain. We therefore have a lot to learn.

Chris Ruane: rose —

Mark Harper: May I first finish responding to the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds)?
	On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point about young people, I had an opportunity to visit Grosvenor grammar school in Belfast to see an example of what, in engaging with people individually, the Electoral Office does with young people in schools. The interesting thing, and another lesson for us, is that a larger proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds are registered to vote in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. As well as making sure that we deal with the potential risks, we have an opportunity to do a better job in getting younger people and disabled people, for example, registered to vote.

Chris Ruane: rose —

Karen Buck: rose —

Mark Harper: I will take one more intervention before I make some progress. Ladies first.

Karen Buck: Does the Minister agree that this is an issue of proportionality? At the moment, approximately 6 million people are not on the electoral register. Does he recognise that the main issue of concern is not spread across the country as a whole but targeted in particular areas and on particular communities, particularly frequent movers? We already know that only one in six of the population who moves frequently is likely to be on the electoral register. Does that not reinforce the need for targeted investment to support individual registration, because otherwise it will be people in inner cities and in the private rented sector who lose out in not finding themselves on the electoral register?

Mark Harper: The hon. Lady makes a good point. As she says, the single piece of information that suggests whether someone is on the electoral register is frequency of movement. We recognise that, and several of the steps that we are taking with stakeholders are intended to work out how we can better deal with it. I will set out later how we propose to fund this and ensure that the money reaches local authorities, and if the hon. Lady thinks that I still have not dealt with the issue, I will take another intervention from her.

Chris Ruane: rose —

Mark Harper: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am going to make some progress, and will perhaps take an intervention from him later. Otherwise I will not get through my speech, and many other Members wish to contribute to the debate.
	It is clear that the current system of registration is unacceptably open to electoral fraud. There is widespread concern about that; indeed, a survey carried out at the end of last year found that 36% of people believe that it is a problem. If citizens do not have confidence in the integrity of our electoral register, they will not have confidence in the integrity of the outcome of elections. We need to tackle that. When we came into office, we did not think that the plans for which Labour had legislated, which involved a voluntary process initially running in parallel, were the best way to tackle the problem. We thought that it would lead to confusion and have a very significant cost. That is why we want to speed up the introduction of individual registration so that the register published after the 2015 annual canvass will consist entirely of entries that have been individually verified, with the sole exception of some of those in the armed forces.
	The Electoral Commission supports that position. At the beginning of the month, Jenny Watson, chair of the commission, said, when commenting on alleged fraud in the recent London mayoral elections:
	“The Electoral Commission wants to see our registration system tightened up and it’s good that the Government plans to introduce new laws to do this which will apply to any of us who want to vote by post before the 2015 General Election.”

Frank Dobson: Did the Electoral Commission find any fraudulent activity in the London mayoral election?

Mark Harper: There have been a number of cases of fraud, although admittedly not many proven cases. An international observer body, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, which is part of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, described the voter registration system in Great Britain as
	“the weakest link of the electoral process due to the absence of safeguards against fictitious registrations.”
	It recommended:
	“Consideration should be given to introducing an identification requirement for voters when applying for registration as a safeguard against fraudulent registration.”
	That is very important. As I said, 36% of the public think that our electoral registration system is vulnerable to fraud, and that is clearly a problem.

Gordon Birtwistle: I welcome this proposal, because during the recent elections in Burnley there were reports of wholesale fraud taking place on an industrial scale through personation and fake postal votes. Is the Minister considering proposals to require photo identification when people turn up to vote to cut out the appalling growth in personation that is taking place in some polling stations? [ Interruption . ]

Mark Harper: That point has been raised with me. At the moment, I do not think that striking the balance between making sure that people who are eligible to vote can vote and preventing those who are not eligible from doing so requires voter ID at polling stations. I heard several Labour Members shout out that that was an illiberal proposition, which is rich coming from people who thought that having compulsory ID cards was a good idea. This Government legislated to get rid of ID cards, and we do not mean to bring them in via the back door.
	Last June, we published a White Paper and draft legislation setting out our proposals. We proposed that in 2014, every elector on the register would be invited to make a new application providing personal information that would be verified by comparing it to data held by the Department for Work and Pensions, to ensure that the applicant was a genuine person. Every elector would have to make a new application and anyone who did not, or whose application was unsuccessful, would be removed from the register published after the 2015 annual canvass.
	We held an extensive public consultation on those proposals, which had more than 900 responses. As its Chairman said, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee carried out pre-legislative scrutiny, and there have been a number of debates and questions on the matter in both Houses.
	Members may have noted that earlier today, to assist the House in its consideration of the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced in a written ministerial statement that the Bill will be part of a pilot for explanatory statements on amendments. I hope that all hon. Members who plan to table amendments will participate in that pilot, as will the Government.

Gavin Shuker: What percentage of the eligible UK population does the Minister believe will be registered after 2015 under his plans?

Mark Harper: I sincerely hope that it will be no lower than the population that is registered today, and indeed that it will be higher. One of the interesting things that we learned from the information that was published last year was that the number of people who were registered was not as high as we had hoped. That research, which the Electoral Commission carried out last year, will act as a baseline for the process. I have made a commitment to get the Electoral Commission to carry out the same research after the process, so that people can see how successful it has been. We want the process to be transparent and we have nothing to hide.

Paul Uppal: I take the Minister’s point about two thirds being the anticipated carry-over to the new register. However, I understand from reading the information from the Electoral Commission that voters who are on the register and who do not reply to the request for individual electoral registration will still be able to vote in the general election of 2015. Is that correct?

Mark Harper: Yes, that is correct. I referred to that point in response to the right hon. Member for Belfast North, when I spoke about the carry-forward. There is the important safeguard that if people fail to register to vote individually and there is no reason to think that they are not eligible to vote, there is a carry-forward process to stop the drop-off that we saw in Northern Ireland when it moved to a new system.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mark Harper: If hon. Members will forgive me, if I am to take interventions, I need at least to answer the questions that people have asked before I take another one. I need to balance taking interventions with making some progress, or I will be chastised by Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hon. Members: There are six hours.

Mark Harper: There are, but I do not think that Members would be very pleased if I took all of them to speak from the Front Bench. Other Members want to participate in the debate.
	I will finish answering the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal). If the check with the DWP database, the data matching or other information suggests to the electoral registration officers that a person is not eligible to vote, because they are not a real person or because they do not live at the given address, of course they will remove them from the register. This is about carrying forward people when there is no information to suggest that they are not eligible, and they simply have not registered. We thought, on balance, that it was better to do the carry-forward to avoid the problem that occurred when individual registration was implemented in Northern Ireland. The consultation suggests that we have got that balance right.

Clive Betts: rose —

Chris Ruane: rose —

Mark Harper: Let me make a little more progress, then I will take more interventions.
	Although there was widespread support for the principle of individual registration, concerns were raised about how our initial proposals might affect the completeness of the register. We have listened to those points and have made four significant changes to the initial proposals. Those changes are included in the Bill and we are confident that they will safeguard the completeness of the register as we move to the new system.
	The first major change is that the Bill enables us to delay the timing of an annual canvass. There were concerns that in the initial proposals the gap between the last canvass under the old system and the start of the transition to individual registration was too long. It was thought to be preferable to carry out a full canvass in 2014, before sending electors individual invitations to register. We do not want to have an extra canvass, as that would be costly and confusing, but we intend to use this power to move the last canvass under the current system from autumn 2013 to spring 2014, so that the register is as up to date as possible before the transition to the new system.

Karen Buck: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Harper: I have already allowed one intervention from the hon. Lady. Let me make some progress and I will take more interventions in a moment.
	The second major change in the Bill will enable us to require electoral registration officers, instead of inviting everyone on their register to make a new application, to begin the transition by matching the names and addresses of every elector already on the register against the DWP’s customer information system. Where the name and address match, and the ERO therefore has confidence that a genuine person lives at the address that they say they live at, that person will be confirmed on the register and retained. They will be informed that they do not have to make an individual application to register. That means that we can balance the integrity of the register with not insisting that every voter takes action in the first transition.
	Evidence from the data-matching pilots that we carried out last year suggests, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West mentioned, that the details of about two thirds of electors can be verified in that way. Today, I will place in the House of Commons Library the evaluations of the data-matching pilot by the Electoral Commission and my Department. Subject to parliamentary approval, we plan to run further data-matching pilots later this year to refine that method.
	When an individual’s information cannot be verified, the electoral registration officer will invite them to register individually. They will be asked to make a new application and to provide their national insurance number and date of birth. As we set out last year, there will be reminders and the extensive use of door-to-door canvassing, as there is now, to encourage applications. If a person does not make a successful individual application, they will still be able to vote in the 2015 general election, as my hon. Friend said. However, any individual who wants to use an absent vote, where the risk is higher, will have to make a successful new application or to have been confirmed and retained on the register. That will ensure that people have greater confidence in the integrity of that election.

Nick Smith: I thank the Minister for giving way. In the further pilots, will the Department use credit reference agencies such as Experian to see whether that boosts electoral registration?

Mark Harper: We will carry out two sets of data-matching pilots. The first set, for which the orders have been laid before the House, although not yet debated and approved, involves the DWP specifically because it will pilot the pre-confirmation process. The second set, for which we have not yet laid the orders, will use other Departments. We have had conversations with private sector agencies. One problem is that there is some circularity in the process, because one way in which they construct their databases is by using the electoral register. It is therefore arguable how much information we would learn from them. However, we have had conversations with them and we will continue to do so.

Chris Ruane: rose—

Clive Betts: rose —

Mark Harper: Go on then; I give way to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane)

Chris Ruane: I thank the Minister very much for giving way.
	On the private sector’s knowledge of electoral registration, two and a half years ago I was informed by Experian that 6.5 million people were missing from the register. When I raised that with the Electoral Commission, it said that the figure was 3.5 million. Six months ago, the Electoral Commission said that, having done its research, the figure was 6 million. The private sector has excellent databases, which we should be utilising to maximise registration.

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman has made that point before. As I said to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), we are not closing off that option and we will continue to have conversations with those organisations.
	Following the 2015 general election, there will be another full household canvass and all potential electors who appear—

Siobhain McDonagh: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mark Harper: If the hon. Lady lets me make the point on the canvass, I will then take her intervention.
	All potential electors who appear on the returned canvass form but have not been verified individually will be invited by electoral registration officers to register. That canvass will include reminders and the extensive use of door-to-door canvassers. At the end of the canvass, the EROs will—

Mark Tami: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Harper: No; let me finish this point, then I will take the intervention from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who got her bid in first.
	At the end of the canvass, the EROs will send personally addressed individual electoral registration application forms to individuals who appeared on the electoral register produced at the end of the old-style canvass, who have not been verified individually and whom electoral registration officers do not believe to have moved. That will act as a final check to ensure that individuals who are to be removed from the register understand what will happen if they do not make an individual application. That will be a robust process, because people will have to go out of their way to avoid being registered. The register that will be used for the 2015 boundary review will therefore be robust, complete and accurate. The relevant part of the Opposition’s reasoned amendment does not hold up at all.

Siobhain McDonagh: Under clause 4, the procedure for the canvass will change. At the moment, if the ERO or their canvasser knocks on a door and finds somebody who is not registered, they fill in the form there and then. Clause 4 states that that can no longer happen, and that the canvasser can only take people’s names and addresses and then send a form to them. Surely the point is that canvassers knock on doors because people have not filled in their forms without assistance.

Mark Harper: Canvassers will be able to identify that there are voters at an address, but each voter will have to register individually and provide their information to the local authority so that it can be verified. We will examine the canvass process when we develop the secondary legislation. Because of the nature of the information being collected on the doorstep—not just people’s names and addresses but their national insurance numbers—we need to take data security carefully, as we have at every step of the way. We will continue to have discussions with local authorities and the Information Commissioner about how best we can do that, but we have a robust set of processes in place to ensure that everyone is registered.

Clive Betts: rose —

Mark Tami: rose —

Mark Harper: Let me make a bit more progress, then I will give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who has been bidding to get in for some time.
	The use of data matching to confirm existing electors will simplify the transition process for most people in the country. It will create a floor below which registration rates cannot fall, and importantly it will allow registration officers to focus their efforts and resources on electors whose details cannot be confirmed and eligible people who are not on the register.

Clive Betts: The Minister said that there would not be transitional arrangements for people who have a postal vote. Does he understand that people who have applied for a postal vote in the past now assume that they are going to get one at every election? There could be a real problem with the Government’s proposals, because, in 2015, people who assume that they are going to get a postal vote will not get one as the lists will have been scrapped. That could have an adverse affect on turnout, because postal voters are more likely to vote, and it could effectively discriminate against the elderly and people with disabilities, who are proportionately more likely to have a postal vote.

Mark Harper: The two thirds of voters whose details are confirmed automatically will be moved over to the new register once their information has been verified. If they are absent voters, their absent vote will automatically be carried forward as well. [Interruption.] That is what will happen. Absent voters whose details are confirmed and who are moved on to the register will be able to use their absent vote. However, people whose information has not been verified and who do not make an individual application will not be able to have an absent vote. Of course, local authorities know who those people are, and we are working with them and with the Electoral Commission to ensure that everyone with an absent vote is contacted so that they know that if they want to continue having an absent vote they need to register individually. We are confident that local authorities will do that. In a moment, I will set out how we will ensure that local authorities get the funding needed to ensure that that takes place.
	The third major change that we have made is removing the opt-out provision from the Bill. The original intention was very simple: to enable EROs to focus their resources on people who wanted to register to vote, rather than having to keep chasing individuals who had no intention of registering. However, we have listened to the arguments made by Members of the House, the Electoral Commission and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. We want the maximum number of eligible people to be registered to vote, so we have decided to remove that provision.
	The final major change we have made to our proposals is that we will enable electoral registration officers to issue a civil penalty when an individual who has been required to make an application fails to do so. Over the past few months, there have been discussions about whether an offence should be attached to an individual form. At the moment, it is not an offence not to be registered, which will not change, but there is a criminal offence of not returning the household canvass form. That, too, will remain, because by not doing so somebody can disfranchise other people.
	We were faced with the question whether we should create a new criminal offence to be applied to the individual application form. We did not think it appropriate to criminalise people who simply did not register to vote. After careful consideration with key stakeholders, and after listening to Members, we believe it is appropriate to create a civil penalty—akin to a parking fine—for individuals who, after being required to make an application by a certain date, fail to do so.

Simon Hughes: The Minister will know that I am very pleased by that announcement, for which I have lobbied. I am grateful for the Bill and the changes the Government have made to it.
	To maximise the number of people registered and get people to understand the penalty if they do not respond, will the Minister ensure that local authorities, social landlords, schools, colleges, sixth forms, the high commissions of Commonwealth countries and the Irish embassy play their full part in getting the system known among those with whom they regularly deal?

Mark Harper: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and he has indeed been greatly involved in making points on the matter in the House, for which I
	am grateful. In his constituency there is significant voter turnover each year, which presents challenges to his local registration officer. We are already working with groups that represent some of the categories that he mentions, but he also mentions a couple that we had not previously considered, such as high commissions. We will certainly bear them in mind, and I will discuss the matter with my officials.

Mark Tami: Will the Minister give way?

Stewart Jackson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Harper: I will finish my point about the civil penalty, then I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson).
	The Bill provides that after a registration officer has followed any specified steps and an individual has not made an application, he can require them to do so. If at that stage they fail to do so, he can impose a civil penalty. The intention is that only those who refuse repeatedly can be fined. We do not think it would be particularly helpful to democracy if we fined hundreds of thousands of people, so we expect the number of fines levied to be similar to the number of prosecutions at present. Nor do we want to create a financial incentive for local authorities to use fines as a revenue-raising measure, so any moneys collected—[Interruption.] I hear one of my hon. Friends chuckling, but one or two local authorities have been known to do such things, so any moneys collected will be paid back to the Exchequer through the Consolidated Fund.

Stewart Jackson: I agree with the compromises that my hon. Friend has made on the opt-out and the civil penalty. I am sure he agrees that people’s propensity to register for elections is a function of societal change as much as anything else. The Electoral Commission has stated:
	“Recent social, economic and political changes appear to have resulted in a declining motivation to register to vote among specific social groups.”
	That is associated with
	“changes in the approach to the annual canvass…as well as matters of individual choice and circumstances (such as a decline in interest in politics).”
	Surely we need to concede that some people do not want to register because they are not interested in the process.

Mark Harper: We do. The main impact on an individual who does not register to vote is the rather obvious one that they lose their opportunity to vote and have their say in how their country is governed, but there are also some public policy reasons why we want people to register to vote. One reason is to ensure that there is a complete register for the purpose of boundary changes, and another is that the electoral register is used as the pool for jury service. We therefore want to ensure that it is as accurate as possible.
	My hon. Friend is right that is up to Members and to people involved in politics of all descriptions to motivate people to register to vote and then use their vote. The use of the vote will, of course, remain sanction-free. It will be entirely up to people whether they use their vote.

Mark Tami: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Harper: Not at this point.
	I shall set out how we intend to fund the transition to individual registration. We have allocated £108 million over the spending review period to do so, including by meeting local authorities’ costs over and above the current cost of electoral registration. I can confirm today—this is new information—that we will fund local authorities in England and Wales directly through grants under section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003. Those will be allocated grants for the purpose of paying for the transition, not just money buried in the revenue support grant. In Scotland, electoral registration is carried out for the most part by EROs who, barring two exceptions, in the city of Dundee and in Fife, are independent of each local authority. There, the additional costs of implementing the new system will be paid directly to them.

Mark Tami: The Parliamentary Secretary talked a lot about the canvass. Does he accept that the quality of the canvass is important, and that some local authorities are much better than others? I welcome his comments on the extra money, but will he ensure that it will be spent on that and not just ferreted away somewhere else?

Mark Harper: Local authorities will have legal obligations to deliver those measures, and I will consult them over the summer about the precise details of the timing of and approach to grant allocations so that they get the money to pay for transition when they need it, and ensure that there is clear accountability, showing that they are taking the steps required by law to prepare for the transition to the new system.

Wayne David: The Parliamentary Secretary makes an important point, but will he give a commitment to the House now that the money will be ring-fenced?

Mark Harper: Section 31 grants are specific grants, and the hon. Gentleman needs to be aware of an interesting point: local authorities already fund about one third of the cost of electoral reform, so if we insisted on a specific amount being spent on electoral registration, it would be easy for local authorities that wanted to do so to evade that. They could use the money that we gave them to pay for their business-as-usual electoral registration and not do any of the things that we want them to do. We will give them money directly; we will consult about the mechanism so that we have some accountability; we will recognise that some local authorities have bigger challenges than others so that all the money is not dished out in the first place—we want local authorities that face the biggest challenges to be able to bid for extra funding—and we will try to ensure that we have a workable system that is not too bureaucratic. I am confident that local authorities and electoral registration officers will welcome our announcement about not allowing the money to be swallowed up in the overall revenue support grant by paying direct grants under section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003. They will have the confidence that they have the money to deliver the programme.
	We consulted widely on our proposals for individual registration, which have undergone pre-legislative scrutiny. We have worked closely with the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators and groups of front-line staff on our plans. We will begin publishing draft secondary legislation for IER in June, and we will continue to add to the package as the summer progresses, aiming to conclude publication before Parliament returns in the autumn. We will talk to those key groups about the detail of the proposals as we go along.
	There will be some matters for which we do not intend to publish draft legislation—for example, those for which we have no current plans to use the powers. There will be other matters on which we want to seek stakeholders’ views about the approach. In the amendment, Labour Members deplore our not publishing secondary legislation and it is therefore worth saying that, for two similar measures—the Electoral Administration Act 2006 and the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, both of which contain significant powers to be made by regulation—no secondary legislation of any description was published at any stage during their passage. It was all made and published after the Bills had received Royal Assent. On that issue, therefore, the Labour party is very much in the mode of “Do as we say, not as we do.”
	The Government’s approach is to treat the House much more seriously, to publish Bills in draft, to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny, and to publish draft legislation while the measure is still going through the House. May I pick up the point that the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee made? Members can see what is proposed while the Bill is undergoing its parliamentary passage. I will take no lectures on that from anyone on the Labour Benches.
	So far, I have discussed the measures that we are taking to mitigate the risk of the transition to the new system. There are also several opportunities to do better. The Bill will facilitate online registration, whereby an individual will complete the end-to-end process without having to fill in a paper form. That will make it more convenient for individuals to register to vote, more accessible for, for example, people with visual impairments, and more accessible for young people. It is our intention that the online system will be fully operational when the transition to individual registration begins. As I said yesterday during Deputy Prime Minister’s questions, that is a genuine opportunity, certainly for disabled people.
	For example, Scope said that it
	“supports the change to a system of IER, and warmly welcomes the Government’s commitment to ensure that disabled people’s needs are taken into account”.
	It agrees with our assessment that
	“the introduction of IER should improve access for voters with disabilities. The current arrangements do not adequately allow for disabled people’s access needs to be taken into account”,
	and that the introduction of IER offers an ideal opportunity to put in place a more accessible system. We intend to do that.

Mark Williams: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for sharing the information about the online system with some of us last week. He will know that one of the concerns that some of us have is about access to national insurance numbers as a
	means of taking part in that system. There is some difficulty in that people do not readily have access to their national insurance numbers. What suggestions has he for improving that?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to be extremely helpful to the House, and he has taken lots of interventions. However, perhaps he will bear it in mind that he has been speaking for more than 40 minutes, that many Members wish to participate in the debate, and that there will be winding-up speeches.

Mark Harper: I am very grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I predicted when I was being perhaps excessively generous that I would be taken to task at some point, and that has happened.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. In that case, it is a shame that the Parliamentary Secretary did not take his own advice.

Mark Harper: I know that one of my faults is that I am generous to a fault, and I will do my best to rein in that generosity. I will respond to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and then I will finish my speech without taking further interventions. I am grateful for your direction, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that other hon. Members will realise that I am simply following wise advice rather than being ungenerous.
	The hon. Gentleman made a good point about national insurance numbers. We have done quite a lot of work on that. The vast majority of members of the public have ready access to their national insurance numbers. When polled, 95% of people did not feel that it would be a problem. Of course, we will ensure that, on the online system, as on the paper-based system, we give people advice if they do not have a national insurance number about the process that they have to follow to get one. There will be an alternative mechanism for the small number of people who do not have a national insurance number to demonstrate their identity to the ERO. However, we do not want to allow that to be a get-out for everybody else. If the hon. Gentleman has anything further to say on the matter, I am obviously happy to discuss that with him.
	I believe that the changes that I have outlined on individual registration will ensure the completeness of the register. I think that the Government have listened, learned and improved the Bill.
	Let me consider briefly the clauses in part 2 about the administration and conduct of elections, which are intended to improve the way in which elections are run. They address issues that parliamentarians and electoral stakeholders have raised, and make several practical and sensible changes. I will not go through them all, just the most significant.
	First, let me consider the provision that extends the electoral timetable for UK parliamentary elections from 17 to 25 days. That will benefit voters, particularly overseas voters and service voters based abroad, enabling them to have more time to receive and return a postal vote. It also makes it easier to combine general elections with other polls.
	The Bill also provides for assisting postal voters—I hope that that is of assistance to the hon. Member for Sheffield South East—whose votes are rejected at elections
	because their postal vote identifiers do not match those stored on records. For example, someone’s signature may have changed or they put down the wrong date—for instance, not their date of birth but the date of the election. Around 150,000 postal votes are rejected at elections. Regulations will make EROs have a duty, after the elections, to inform voters that their identifiers have not matched.
	[Laughter.] 
	I do not know why the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) is laughing. The provision is included so that the identifiers can be updated and that, instead of those voters losing their votes at every subsequent election, they can ensure that their votes count in future. At the moment, there is no duty to inform them. While the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in government, hundreds of thousands of postal votes were rejected at elections and nothing was done. Rather than laughing at the sensible provisions, I would hope that he supported them.
	Alongside that provision, the Government plan to introduce secondary legislation to make it a requirement that 100% of postal vote identifiers are checked at elections. At the moment, legislation provides for only 20% of postal votes to be checked. Ensuring that 100% have to be checked will strengthen the integrity of the process.
	There are also provisions to allow the Secretary of State to withhold or reduce a returning officer’s fee for poor performance, but with the important check that there must be a recommendation by the independent Electoral Commission. That is to ensure that returning officers are more accountable. That provision was implemented on a test basis in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011—it was a power that the chief counting officer had. It worked well and we are therefore taking it forward.
	The final shape of the proposals demonstrates the value that pre-legislative scrutiny adds to the development of legislation. I hope most hon. Members will see that the Government have taken a careful, thoughtful and measured approach in developing our policy. The Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), is not sitting in his usual place as he has been upgraded to the Opposition Front Bench, but he said in January that
	“the House is in severe danger of doing the job that members of the public elected it to do. The Government have submitted a pre-legislative proposal to the Select Committee, which is how things should happen. The Select Committee responded with non-partisan efforts to determine a better Bill and to make better proposals, some of which have already been heard by the Government.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 508.]
	The Government have since accepted more such proposals. In that spirit, I commend the Bill to the House.

Wayne David: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
	“this House, whilst affirming its support for a complete and accurate electoral register and a move to a system of individual electoral registration (IER), declines to give a Second Reading to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill because whilst the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 received cross-party
	support, establishing an orderly move to IER with a strong independent role for the Electoral Commission in guarding against a sharp fall in registration numbers, the Bill speeds up the introduction of IER, and downgrades the Electoral Commission’s role, with the result that there will be no independent arbitrator with the power to halt the process if it is deemed to have resulted in a sharp drop in registration levels; notes that the 2015 parliamentary boundary changes will be based on the new electoral register which will potentially be inaccurate, risking illegitimate new constituency boundaries; believes the proposals would mean the young, the poor, ethnic minorities and disabled people would face an increased risk of being unregistered and thus excluded from a range of social and civic functions; further regards the proposals as flawed as they risk making the list from which juries are drawn less representative; concludes that because the evaluation of the second round of data-matching pilots will not be published until early 2013 an assessment of the likely completeness of the register is in effect prevented; and deplores the fact that the Government has not published secondary legislation and an implementation plan for the introduction of IER.”
	As the Minister has said, the Bill is essentially in two parts, the second of which concerns the minutiae of the administration and conduct of elections. Much of it contains relatively uncontentious proposals, but other matters ought to be addressed, particularly the need to ensure that there are no more queues at polling stations. One proposal might well raise a few eyebrows—to allow a candidate who is supported by two or more political parties to use the emblem of one of them. The Minister has said previously that the measure addresses an anomaly and permits Labour and Co-operative candidates to use those emblems. It is kind of him to be helpful to the Labour party, but I must tell Conservative Back Benchers to be afraid—be very afraid. It could well be the thin end of the wedge. Who knows what it could lead to?
	The first part of the Bill demands far greater attention because it focuses on electoral registration. The Opposition’s view is that individual electoral registration is a sound principle. It places an appropriate responsibility on individuals to register to vote and is in tune with modern society. It can no longer be sensible for voter registration to be in the hands of the head of household. Individual elector registration is also an effective way in which to ensure the completeness and accuracy of voter registration. That is why the Labour Government secured legislation for individual elector registration in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
	Last autumn, the Government introduced their draft Bill and White Paper on IER. Understandably, their proposals at the time created consternation among a wide range of opinion. Much attention focused on their suggestion that there should be a virtual opt-out for individuals who do not wish to be reminded about registration by an electoral registration officer. The second proposal that understandably left many aghast was the suggestion in the White Paper that voter registration ought to be a lifestyle choice, and that no fines should be imposed for non-registration. I welcome the fact that the Government have reconsidered both those proposals and others, but we should be clear that a draft Bill and prior consultation are relatively innovative for this Government—there was no draft Bill or prior consultation on two previous pieces of important constitutional legislation, namely the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. I am glad that they are changing their ways. The opt-out has been dropped and civil penalties will be introduced, as suggested by the Opposition. I am also pleased that the Government have listened and that
	many electors on the old registers will be carried over. Similarly, the annual canvass planned in 2013 will now occur in 2014. As far as that is concerned, so far, so good.

Karen Buck: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the population and electoral registration turnover in parts of the country, particularly London and the inner cities, is 30%? Having a canvass a full year before an election means that we risk going into the election with a third of the population unregistered. The Minister said that there will be a national expectation that the total number of people not on the register will fall, which is fine, but if we do not recognise the variance between communities and the pressures on cities, that national expectation will not be much comfort to people such as me.

Wayne David: That is a good point, and I shall refer to it later in my speech.
	As I was saying, the Government have made positive concessions, but they have not listened on other matters—indeed, they have refused to listen to those who have expressed legitimate concerns about the Bill. Foremost among the Opposition’s concerns and those of many outside the House is the Government’s intention to press ahead with individual elector registration at a breakneck speed. The concern that there will be no carry-over for many postal and proxy votes in the move to a new register has been expressed by a range of disability charities, including Mencap, Sense, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and Scope.

Mark Williams: I have read the Scope briefing and share that concern, but is the hon. Gentleman not reassured by what the Minister has said? He said that a very small group of people will not be carried over and that there will be a carry-over of existing absent voters to the new list.

Wayne David: I am not entirely reassured by what the Minister has said. In fact, I found his comments contradictory and confusing. It is a straightforward matter, and I hope that he provides in his winding-up speech the clarification that the Opposition and organisations such as the Royal National Institute of Blind People want.
	There is also a worry that moneys for EROs to support transition have not been adequately ring-fenced. I listened carefully to the Minister. He provided more clarity, but has specifically not stated that the money will be ring-fenced so that it is spent on the purpose for which it is intended, which was a key Political and Constitutional Reform Committee recommendation; I pay warm tribute to the Committee’s work.
	Many other concerns are referred to in the reasoned amendment, one of which is the power that the Bill gives to Ministers to cancel annual canvasses. The Government’s argument is that we might at some point no longer need annual canvasses, when registers are complete. The Opposition argue that an annual canvass is needed even if we eventually have high registration levels, because we must always guard against, and be diligent about, any deterioration of the electoral roll.
	The Government have made much of their U-turn on civil penalties. I do not want to belittle their volte face, but before the House can make an assessment of the civil penalty that the Government propose, it needs to
	know exactly how much the penalty will be. The Minister has said in other exchanges that the penalty will be like a parking fine, but the size of parking fines varies enormously across the country. Here in Westminster, they can be as high as £130, but in Rhondda Cynon Taff in south Wales, they can be as low as £25. Nobody wishes large numbers of fines to be issued, but if fines are to be an incentive for people to register, they need to be fixed at a reasonable level, and yet we do not know what that will be.

Oliver Colvile: When I was a Conservative party agent way back in the 1980s—[ Interruption. ] —people were forced to pay a fixed fine of £50 for non-registration, but does the hon. Gentleman know how many people were forced to pay it?

Wayne David: That is not much of an argument. We need an indication from the Government, which they have failed to provide, of the level at which the fixed fine will be set. There is no question of varying the fixed fine, of course; it will be a uniform fixed fine. We simply want to know what it should be. The Observer suggested that it might be £100. There have been other suggestions, too. I am simply saying that given that the Government are making a big thing of having listened to the opinions of many people outside the House and are committed to a civil penalty in principle, we need to know what they judge an effective figure to be.

Gavin Shuker: Is not the point that the threat of a fine is proportionate to how much money it would take off people? If it is a small fine, people will be less likely to register, but if it is a larger fine, they will be more likely to do so.

Wayne David: My hon. Friend puts it very well.
	The Minister told us that details of the civil penalty would be set out in secondary legislation, which brings me to a broader point. With this legislation, perhaps more than any other, the devil is in the detail, but the detail is tucked away in secondary legislation and we cannot see it. Last November, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister, from the Dispatch Box, whether the Government would publish their secondary legislation at the same time as the primary legislation. That was six months ago. Additional information has been forthcoming, including today, but six months later we still cannot properly assess these proposals, simply because we do not know—we have not been told—the detail.
	One of the main reasons we have continuing concerns about the Bill relates to the Government’s timetable for implementation. Under the last Labour Government, the Electoral Commission was to play a key role in monitoring and assessing the progress towards a new register. Sadly, that role has been diminished and downgraded. Instead, the Government are rushing pell-mell into a new system of electoral registration that ought to provide the cornerstone of our democratic process. We understand from the Government that they are undertaking a second round of data matching. That is to be welcomed and will show how complete the new register is at the end of 2015. The pilots will indicate whether the new register will be depleted. In all reasonableness, I think that the House should be aware of the conclusion of the
	pilots before it decides on the Government’s implementation timetable, yet the results of the data-matching pilots will not be available until early next year.
	Why are the Government hell-bent on introducing this radical change at breakneck speed? It has been suggested that they are determined to end the carry-over arrangements before 1 December 2015 for reasons of Conservative party self-interest.

Eleanor Laing: I recall that we first discussed individual electoral registration in the House seven years ago, since when it has been implemented in Northern Ireland—effectively a pilot scheme for the rest of the UK—and it has been looked at over the past two or more years in great detail. How can that possibly be described as breakneck speed?

Wayne David: It is breakneck speed. This is the first piece of legislation in the Queen’s Speech to be introduced. The Electoral Commission and many others have said that we must first complete the data-matching exercises. The Government have deliberately introduced this legislation as quickly as possible in their legislative programme to circumvent the evidence coming forward that might highlight weaknesses in the process.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has a problem. He is a good guy and, like me, wants a good Bill. The Government came up with proposals, have hugely improved on them having listened to him, me and many others, including people outside, and they now want to implement a system that his Government never implemented, despite saying that they would—and this Government will do it as quickly as possible, and they are building in the safeguards. On this occasion, then, he ought to accept that the Government have done a good job. Why does he not simply thank the Government for having listened?

Wayne David: With all due respect, I say to the Liberal Democrats that, yes, concessions have been made, but there is still a long, long way to go. As I hope the Liberal Democrats come to realise before the end of the passage of the Bill, some measures in it might well work against their interests. The advantage will be with the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats might pay a very high price for acquiescing in the policies of their Conservative masters.
	What is the significance of 1 December 2015? It is when the next parliamentary boundary review takes place. As we should all be aware, under the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, if, for whatever reasons, there is a decline in the number of electors in certain constituencies, the parliamentary boundaries must be redrawn. It would be most unfortunate for the Government to give the impression that they were seeking political advantage by introducing IER at the end of the transitional period, when the size of the electorate could be temporarily diminished. It could be that the new data-matching pilots will indicate that December 2015 is precisely the time when electoral numbers are likely to be at their lowest.

Chris Ruane: What reason have the Tory Government given for bringing forward IER by one year and putting
	back the next election to the latest possible date, which is May 2015? Is it happenstance or could it be for political advantage?

Wayne David: I do not think it is mere coincidence. It is possible to look at the dates and come to certain conclusions. I only wish that the Liberal Democrats would do the same and recognise that there is a lot in what I say.
	That concern has been identified by many others. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has raised it, as has the Electoral Reform Society, which pointed out that a depleted register could lead to the reduction of inner-city constituencies, while leaving
	“thousands of…citizens who will not be accounted for or considered in many key decisions that affect their lives, yet will still look to MPs to serve them as local constituents.”
	I ask the Government, therefore, to dispel any impression that their agenda is partisan. To do that, all they need to do is adopt a more reasonable time scale for the introduction of IER that goes beyond December 2015.
	It is because the Government have so far been unable to acknowledge our concerns or act on our proposals that we have tabled our reasoned amendment. If the amendment is unsuccessful, we will oppose the Bill’s Second Reading. That is not a course of action that we want to take, but we feel it absolutely necessary to uphold the integrity of the electoral system while ensuring that our democratic system is built on firm foundations.

Mark Harper: rose—

Wayne David: We believe that there is no firmer foundation than an accurate and complete electoral register.

Stewart Jackson: I like the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), but I fear that spending too many evenings in parliamentary Labour party meetings has made him quite paranoid, given that the previous Government advanced the same substantive proposals for individual electoral registration in Northern Ireland and that the consultation document that was published in 2005 was followed by the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006, which gave rise to individual electoral registration in Northern Ireland. Neither we nor anyone else accused those measures of being rushed through. The hon. Gentleman must be the first Front Bencher to argue against the substantive proposals of the previous Government. The bigger question is why the integrity, autonomy and authority of the electoral register should be more important in Northern Ireland than in England, Wales and Scotland.

Mark Harper: I would have made this point to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), had he shown the generosity of spirit that I did. Given his complaints about the diminishing register and the risks involved, would my hon. Friend like to consider why the Electoral Commission’s research showed that in 2000, under the previous Government, 3 million people were missing from the electoral register and that by 2010, just after they had left office, the figure had risen to 6 million? If there is a party in the House that has shown itself to be
	a past master at driving people off the electoral register, it is not the party on the Government Benches; it is the party opposite.

Stewart Jackson: The Minister makes an astute point. In 2001, the year in which the hon. Member for Caerphilly entered the House, the English electorate numbered 37.3 million. By the end of Labour’s second term, in 2005, the figure was 37.1 million. So Labour did not push up registration rates in an increasing population either.
	I take with a pinch of salt Labour’s protestations and faux outrage. We have argued for many years that overseas voters should also have the right to be registered, and that active steps should be taken to achieve that. That point has also been made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly’s erstwhile right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane). However, that did not happen during the 13 years of the previous Government. Indeed, they more or less ignored services voters, despite many people from military constituencies saying that that was an outrageous and egregious oversight.

David Evennett: My hon. Friend is making some powerful points. Does he agree that the modernisation of our system is essential, and that it should be brought in as soon as possible?

Stewart Jackson: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who has great experience in the House.
	The Bill is absolutely right, in that its central aims are to tackle electoral fraud, improve the integrity of our electoral system, particularly the electoral register, and modernise the electoral registration system, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett) says, is most important. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) was gracious in paying tribute to the Minister and the Department for engaging in an open and wide-ranging debate during the pre-legislative scrutiny and public consultation, and for producing the White Paper and a detailed, comprehensive Government response in February 2012. It is far from the truth that this is some kind of rushed, gerrymandering Bill. It has attracted a lot of support, including from organisations such as the Electoral Commission. There is consensus around the Bill.
	The proposals in the Bill featured not only in the Conservative manifesto of May 2010 but in the coalition agreement, so we certainly have a mandate for carrying out this policy. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly were more generous of spirit, he would perhaps admit that the previous Government wanted to proceed in a similar way when they were in power. Reference has been made to the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 in that regard.

Chris Ruane: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a question that has so far remained unanswered? The 2009 Act was passed as a result of consensus across the Chamber, and its provisions were to start in 2015. Why is it so important to bring them back by one year? Why could we not have retained all-party consensus by keeping the date at 2015?

Stewart Jackson: Because we see this as in the best interest of the body politic generally. There is a plethora of evidence to show that cumulative cases of electoral
	fraud—I will come on to discuss this issue later both for my own constituency and across the country—have grievously damaged the faith and trust people have in the electoral process. The Minister is quite right that we have all been complacent in assuming that we live in a society where transparency, openness and fairness exist above all in the electoral process. I did not think I would ever encounter a case in which a judge would describe a British electoral result—in this case, for Birmingham city council—as comparable to one of a banana republic, yet that happened in 2004 under the watch of the Government whom the hon. Member for Caerphilly supported.
	Important parts of the Bill are uncontentious, but I will bring some concerns to the House’s attention later. Of course individual electoral registration has been broadly supported across the House over a number of years. Some elements, such as the review of polling places, are innocuous and will not be contentious, as I said.
	On civil penalties, I mentioned earlier that we must be cognisant of the fact that some people are not interested in the political process. We cannot force people to register on the basis of a criminal sanction—it is not right to do so—if they genuinely do not feel part of the process. That is a function not of a political process, but of societal change over many years. International comparisons are important for understanding how to get people to register. Australia is an interesting example. The level of civic engagement in schools and colleges there and the amount of publicity given to financial education, for example, has led to school children and young people understanding the importance of being involved in the system. I think that is a much better way of proceeding than having criminal sanctions and a penalty. Our society is much changed.

Siobhain McDonagh: I am certainly no expert on the Australian system and I am sure that school education there is good. Nevertheless, Australia has compulsory voting and has far more frequent and stronger fining than we do.

Stewart Jackson: We will not meander down the path of compulsory voting, which is a completely separate issue, and even the benign Deputy Speaker might rule me out of order if I did that. I think it is better to persuade than to threaten and cajole people. That is why I am not particularly concerned one way or the other about the opt-out proposals. Had they remained in the Bill and not been amended, I would still have been happy to support it. We can argue about civil penalties, but I think amounts of £60, £80 or £100 send out a powerful enough message. After all, no one wants to get a parking ticket and be fined £60. We are talking about civic engagement with something that is important for the future of our country, and people understand that they should be part of it.
	An important corollary of the changes is the reduction in the potential for financial fraud. Essentially, the capacity to commit fraud is often given via a place on the electoral register. Figures produced over the last year or so in the Cabinet Office impact assessment by the Metropolitan Police Service and the National Fraud Initiative under the auspices of Operation Amberhill showed that of 29,000 information strands collated, 13,214—almost 46%—showed data matches with the
	electoral register that were fraudulent or counterfeit. In other words, the documents were often generated as a result of someone’s being on the electoral register, but were nevertheless fraudulent or counterfeit.
	The Minister made the simple point that ours is one of the few countries in the world that still operates a household registration system. The system is backward-looking, and it disfranchises people, particularly women, in communities in which the heads of households take full responsibility for women’s registration and postal vote. We should do something about that. We have a duty to ensure that those women’s votes are not being stolen by people who should not have access to them, because we have a universal franchise based on free and fair access to democracy for every man and every woman, which is what has put us here today.
	At present, only a person’s name, address and nationality need to be supplied for that person to appear on the electoral register. As the Minister made clear, this is one of the least robust systems in the world. Let me share with the House our experience in Peterborough. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who I know has been in the House for a long time, was very relaxed and insouciant, perhaps even complacent, about postal votes and the transfer to the individual electoral registration system. However, on 27 April the Peterborough Evening Telegraphreported that 16% of postal votes applied for in the central ward of Peterborough had been thrown out because they were fraudulent or forged.
	That is happening now, and it can be extrapolated to different communities and different wards in urban areas throughout the country, including Greater London. However, Members need not rely on me for speculation, because there have already been serious cases of electoral fraud involving postal votes in Slough, Pendle, Birmingham, West Yorkshire and, in particular, Peterborough. I shall say more about that later.

Siobhain McDonagh: I certainly would not tolerate the fraudulent registration of even one postal vote, but how can it be right to reduce access to postal votes for the many because of a few examples of fraud? No investigation, including those by the Electoral Commission and the Association of Chief Police Officers, has discovered extensive fraud. We know that it happens, and we know that it happens in particular places, but surely the job of the police is to find out where it happens and make specific proposals to deal with it, not to disfranchise the many.

Stewart Jackson: We are making specific proposals. I think that the hon. Lady is tarrying with the wrong person. I saw the huge resources that were devoted to investigation of postal vote fraud by the Cambridgeshire constabulary—who, as far as I know, received little if any help from the Government of whom the hon. Lady was a member—between 2004 and 2008. It took four years for Operation Hooper to complete its investigation, which resulted in the imprisonment of, I believe, five individuals—two of them Conservative and three Labour, as it happens—following the European and city council elections in the central ward of Peterborough in June 2004.
	We cannot say that we should not bother about this because we have no proof that it happens. It does happen, it is costly, it undermines the very basis of democracy in this country, and we should ensure—as I believe the Bill does—that the correct procedures operate to ensure that it does not happen in the future. The hon. Lady may wish to reconsider her rather lackadaisical approach to the integrity of our electoral system.
	One proposal with which I strongly agree, although I do not think that the Government have gone far enough, is the proposal in clause 19 to allow police community support officers into polling stations. I think that if there is a missed opportunity in the Bill, it is our failure to consider the serious problem of personation and intimidation at polling stations. We saw that in Tower Hamlets earlier this month, and we have seen it too often in Peterborough. I must not major on Peterborough’s central ward, but it is the one that I know best. In that ward we have four polling stations. About half a dozen members of the Cambridgeshire constabulary and mobile CCTV are required at each of them because of the issue of personation, of which there have been cases in Peterborough.
	We are not going far enough in looking again at the Representation of the People Act 1983, because the power of the presiding officer inside the polling station remains extremely limited. If the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden were to go into a polling station in Mitcham and Morden and say she was Elvis Presley and that name was on the electoral register, the polling clerk would have very little power to say, “Actually, you’re not Elvis Presley. You’re our esteemed local Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden.” That is not satisfactory. The legal test for proving that the hon. Lady is her good self, rather than Elvis Presley, is very difficult. We have missed an opportunity to look again at that issue.
	In closing—which is what the Whips are imploring me to do—may I make two quick points? I have concerns about the removal of the co-ordinated online record of electors—CORE—database. I have no interest in promoting national ID databases—I voted against identity cards—but the Minister must tell us how successful he has been in removing the difficulties of duplication, which have frequently arisen. CORE ameliorated that, but it is no longer in place.
	On a slightly mischievous note, this morning on the ConservativeHome website my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) made a point about clause 18 and allowing a parliamentary candidate standing on behalf of two or more parties to use a registered emblem of one or more parties. Can the Minister assure me that there is no hidden agenda in that, and that it is just a helpful way to assist Labour and Co-operative party representatives to get elected in their seats?

Mark Harper: I am happy to be able to give my hon. Friend that assurance. There will not be coalition candidates at the next election; there will be separate Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidates. I must say, too, that the attitude of Labour Members is a bit depressing. The only reason why we are making this change is that when the Labour party was in office it could not draft legislation properly and inadvertently “cocked it up”, to quote the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). Because of
	that, and because we are fixing what is largely a problem for Labour and Co-operative Members, one would think they could be slightly less churlish.

Stewart Jackson: Finally, let me say that the data-matching projects are very useful, but in Peterborough’s case they resulted in merely a 54.7% matching rate. More work needs to be done in the second tranche, and sufficient resources must be allocated, as this will be the bedrock of individual electoral registration.
	I thank the Minister for his detailed and comprehensive remarks. The Bill is excellent. It restores integrity, honesty and transparency to the electoral system. That is long overdue. The previous Government should have done this, but it has been our new Government who have taken this courageous step, in order to make sure we can all have faith and trust in the system that puts us here and puts councillors in their seats. That adds to British democracy.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Many Members wish to speak, so I am imposing a 12-minute time limit on contributions.

Clive Betts: First, let me say that the principle of individual registration is unarguably right; indeed, I have supported it for some time. Excellent work has been done by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in this Parliament, but I have read again the recommendations of 2004-05, when a Joint Committee of the Committees of Constitutional Affairs and the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister looked at this issue. We supported the principle of individual registration, and looked at a number of ways in which that could have been done. However, neither of the main political parties chose to look at a proposal I thought might be appropriate: a common household form that individuals signed, so that people registered individually on a single form.
	At that time, we discussed the possible consequences of individual registration not being done properly, and that issue has been part of the general argument ever since. As the introduction of these new measures is now being speeded up, I ask the Minister what will happen if our worst fears are realised and there is a significant fall in the number of people on the register. What will the Government’s answer be at that point? Is there a plan B? Are measures in place to address that eventuality, or will Ministers simply wring their hands and say, “Oh dear, we didn’t really intend that. It shouldn’t have happened, but it has happened and there’s nothing we can do about it”? It is reasonable and right that we raise those concerns at this point and ask Ministers to respond to them.
	Back in 2004-05, we looked at data matching, which is key if we are to get this process right. It is an integral part of the system, and it is absolutely right that electoral registration officers have access to a whole range of data from private and public bodies—the utilities, postal services, universities and colleges, local authority housing associations, local authority schools, academies and universities. I congratulate the Government on going ahead with their pilots, which is the correct way to
	proceed. The problem is that, as we know—the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) just mentioned it—the pilots were not terribly informative. They did not convince anyone that the process was in place for data matching to deliver significant improvements to the register at this stage. The Electoral Commission said that the analysis lacked a common methodological framework—in other words, there was no common assessment of the benefits of the different pilots.
	I welcome the Government saying that there should be a second round of pilots, but we have not reached the point where we can conclude that there will be significant benefits to the register. Pushing ahead with the new regime of individual registration when we do not really know what the best forms of data matching are and how they will work is a major concern. It is not that I am against the principle of individual registration; however, we are not yet certain that we have the schemes in place really to improve registration through the data-matching process.
	The hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) finally got there, did he not? If we had an ID card system in place, we would have everything we need—we would not need to worry about data matching because we would have the basis for a comprehensive electoral registration system with individual registration. We would not have to duplicate it or provide lots of information to different local organisations. This issue is often missed out in these discussions, but the hon. Gentleman got there in the end—two years late. Perhaps some of his colleagues might do so as well.
	I am in favour of complete reform of the electoral registration process. Before the Select Committee produced its report, it went to Australia to see what happens there. They described their system to us, and we described ours to them, and they looked at us with a slight degree of amazement when we explained that the main part of our process was to write each year to every household to try to get a response. The people who responded were those who normally respond, and they were often the households that stay the same year in, year out. In other words, we concentrated all our resources on writing at the same time of year to people whose circumstances had not changed. That is a very inefficient and ineffective system, because it does not target the groups who do not respond or the people whose circumstances have changed.
	In Australia, they adopt the data-matching approach. They have an existing register, and they make changes when they get information about a change in circumstances—for example, that new people have moved in and others have moved out, or that someone has become eligible to vote because they are now older. They get such information from schools, universities and so on. Their system is based on targeting resources on people who move or whose circumstances in some way change, making sure that they are followed up so that the register can be altered accordingly.
	At the time of the report, we recommended that when the system is comprehensively reformed, the annual canvass be dropped and replaced with a three-year audit to check that the register is accurate as a result of the data matching. That is an ideal ultimate position to reach; the problem is that we do not know which data-matching systems will work, and until we do, it is very dangerous to take away other parts of the system
	that are currently important in ensuring that we get as comprehensive a register as possible. We all know from the excellent work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) that our register is not very accurate, so we must be very concerned about anything that might worsen it.
	On the Government’s approach to people who do not register, I welcome their decision to introduce a civil penalty, as it is the right approach. People have a responsibility to register, and the Government’s change in position on that is welcome. They have clearly listened to the evidence, information and views put to them, and responded appropriately. However, I would go further on the requirements.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) raised this next matter in a meeting I was at a few weeks ago. If people are going to need services or benefits from the state that require them to give an address—this is in addition to data being obtained from various parts of government to inform electoral registration officers of the state of play on their register and individuals’ addresses—I do not see any reason why they should not be required to show that they are registered at that address. If someone is going to claim benefits or services from the state, they also have a responsibility to act as a citizen. As a citizen, they should be required to do jury duty and not pass that requirement on to others. Why should they not be required to be eligible for jury duty and therefore to have to register?

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my hon. Friend for supporting my ten-minute rule Bill in the last Session. I hope to bring it back, and I hope that it will have all-party support.

Clive Betts: I am certainly prepared to support that Bill.
	This is not just about jury service; it is also about the fact that the registers are used to draw up boundaries. If some people decide that they want to opt out of registration, they are, in effect, undermining and reducing the level of electoral representation in their area, by making the constituency they live in have a larger number of residents. That is because the boundaries will be made on the basis not of the number of residents, but the number of people registered to vote in areas. Again, it is a matter of civic responsibility that people should be registering. If they take services and benefits from the state, they should give something back in return.
	The other issue I briefly wish to address is how we go about forming a national regime for improving registration. We have to examine the powers that the Electoral Commission has and those it is asking for. As a localist, I think we are currently too prescriptive about the means of getting a comprehensive register. I have mentioned that we may not require the annual canvass in future. The Electoral Commission should give electoral registration officers a general requirement to ensure that as high a percentage of people in an area register as possible. The Electoral Commission should give guidelines and examples of good practice as to how that should be achieved. If EROs then do not carry out their functions—if we clearly see that in some areas the process is failing, whereas in others it is succeeding—the Electoral
	Commission should have powers not merely to monitor and shame those officers who are not performing in their duties, but to intervene. Those powers are lacking in this Bill. The commission has asked for them—people from the commission mention them every time we meet—and we ought to examine them. We need less prescription about how this is done; a clear requirement for EROs to maximise registration; a clear requirement for the commission to give guidelines and examples of good practice; and powers for the commission then to intervene if there is a failure in particular areas.
	I say to the Minister that I have been partly reassured on postal votes. It is very important that people who have long-term postal votes, not for any fraudulent reason, but because they simply need them—perhaps because they are elderly, they are disabled or they work away from home a lot—should not be disadvantaged in any way. As we saw, turnouts in the recent local elections were not high, but turnouts among postal voters, certainly in my constituency, where there have been no allegations of electoral fraud that I am aware of, were much higher. If we do anything to discourage legitimate postal voting, we will reduce turnout, and it is important that we keep that in mind.
	I shall conclude now, as I am aware that other hon. Members wish to contribute. I just say to the Minister that the reasoned amendment is just that—it is a reasoned amendment. Many—perhaps all—Labour Members are not against the principle of individual registration; we are merely concerned about an undue rush to implement it, which could damage the number of people registering. Such damage would not be intended by Ministers but, if it were to occur, it would be very damaging to the whole democratic process in this country.

Andrew Stephenson: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate and I broadly welcome the content of the Bill. There is much to commend it, especially individual electoral registration, which is long overdue. Regardless of what official statistics say, the simple fact is that in parts of Britain electoral fraud is widespread and has led to fraudulent election results. That is a disgrace and should be tackled immediately or at least as soon as is practicably possible, not in 2014 or 2015—or even later, as the Opposition suggest.

Frank Dobson: The law provides for people who commit electoral fraud to be prosecuted, fined or imprisoned. If the problem is as widespread as people suggest, why are there not more prosecutions, more people paying fines and more electoral swindlers in jail?

Andrew Stephenson: I shall come on to that exact point. There are a range of reasons why electoral fraud is not reported, the police do not have the resources to follow it up and the culprits are not brought to justice. Dozens of MPs have majorities in two or three figures and I have real concerns about the integrity of the ballot and its impact on recent elections as well as future ones.
	My Labour predecessor in this House, Gordon Prentice, was a vocal supporter of individual voter registration, particularly in April 2008 when he found out that our Lib Dem opponent for the last general election had 27 registered voters living in his house and a household
	of 44 people. I know that some Members will raise their eyebrows at that, and it was indeed an exceptional case, but I can assure them that in parts of my constituency it is not uncommon for seven, eight or more voters to be registered as living in a terraced house and no one makes any checks on that.
	We have also seen a sharp rise in the number of eastern European names appearing on the electoral roll, including those of Polish, Lithuanian or Czech citizens, but few are correctly marked as being unable to vote in UK parliamentary elections or referendums. During my time in Parliament, the names of virtually every illegal immigrant or illegal overstayer with whom I have dealt has appeared on the electoral roll. We know from Operation Amberhill, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), that almost half of all forged or counterfeit documents were positive matches on the electoral register.
	Surely all that would lead anyone to support individual electoral registration—and I do—but we need to ensure that it is properly scrutinised for fraud and that the returns are accurate. Scrutiny costs money and it will take a significant amount of time and effort to check people’s citizenship or residency status, in particular, so I welcome the Minister’s comments about extra money for the project.
	The nub of the issue of electoral fraud is on-demand postal voting, on which I believe, sadly, that the Bill should go further. It was introduced by the previous Government and my concerns are widely shared by a number of Members and by many of my constituents. In a letter to the Electoral Commission’s Jenny Watson last summer, Pendle borough council’s chief executive, Stephen Barnes, described how
	“allegations and perceptions of malpractice around”
	postal voting
	“are seriously undermining public confidence in the whole electoral process”,
	and expressed his own view that those concerns were fully justified, citing examples of probable malpractice and difficulties for the council in taking action.
	In a motion last year, Pendle borough council resolved that practices related to postal votes
	“affected the result of the election in some wards”.
	Just last week, five councillors in Pendle from the three main parties came together to form a taskforce on tackling postal vote fraud. One of those five, Conservative Councillor Linda Crossley, said:
	“People used to have to be really ill, virtually bed-ridden, to get a proxy or postal vote, now anybody can get a postal vote”.
	To put that into context and explain how it happens, I shall refer to one ward, Reedley, where the scale and impact of postal voting has been dramatic. I should declare an interest. Reedley was for many years a safe Conservative ward and perhaps it still is, without on-demand postal voting. Until last year all three councillors were Conservative; now there is only one. In 2010, 800 postal votes were issued in Reedley in an election in which 3,049 people voted. The Conservative candidate secured 49% of the vote and was easily elected. In 2011, Reedley saw a 25% increase in postal votes, and this year a further increase of almost 25%. In two years an extra 479 voters felt the need to vote by post. Virtually all were from the British Pakistani community and virtually all were signed up for postal votes by the Labour party.
	Not coincidentally, Labour was elected on both occasions. The Conservative vote did not collapse. The Labour victory was not on trend across the constituency. Nevertheless, in this ward its support rocketed.

Angela Smith: In 2004 in Sheffield we had an all-postal vote election. Labour won that election against the trend. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that in such instances there is wide-scale fraud on the part of Labour voters?

Andrew Stephenson: Certainly not. I am suggesting that certain parties can abuse the system of on-demand postal voting, and all parties have a vested interest in signing up their voters for postal votes in order to increase the turnout of their voters. I believe that that can skew election results. A return to the old system, where voters had to have a reason to have a postal vote, is the way that we should go.
	I accept that in the Reedley ward it is theoretically possible that local support for Labour did sky-rocket. However, I have no doubt that the 45% increase in the Labour vote in 2011, against the backdrop of an 18% drop in turnout, was down to the huge increase in postal votes that year, as well as individual reports of party activists walking into polling stations with piles of up to 50 postal votes at a time. It is not so much that the numbers do not add up; rather, that they do. As the new council leader of Pendle, Councillor Joe Cooney, recently said:
	“If we lose an election we want to lose it fairly, we don’t want to see councillors losing seats where it is not a level playing field.”
	I accept, as I said, that while the rules remain as they are, all political parties will compete to sign up as many people as possible on to postal votes. Everyone in the Chamber knows that electors with postal votes are more likely to use their vote, so all political parties have a vested interest in doing that. However, as we all know, the temptation for some political activists to create fictitious voters and sign them up for postal votes has proved irresistible in places such as Slough, Birmingham and east London.
	It is also clear, yes, that there is a cultural element. That has been endorsed by independent organisations such as the Joseph Rowntree Trust. Even if the electoral roll is accurate, as the Bill hopes to ensure, the current on-demand postal voting regime actively disfranchises women and young people by allowing family voting to occur. By family voting, I mean the head of a household pledging the entire family’s votes to a particular political party. He can then ensure that all those votes go to that political party by watching family members complete their postal ballots, completing the ballots himself, or indeed completing them with an activist from the said political party.

Stewart Jackson: I entirely concur with my hon. Friend’s comments. What we have found in Peterborough from time to time is that the head of the household will fill in both the signature and the date of birth of predominantly women members of the family. It is time-consuming and resource-intensive for the local authority and the electoral registration officer to cross-reference and match those. It is only in that way that the practice is found out, but often it is not. That is uncomfortable and unpalatable, but nevertheless true.

Andrew Stephenson: This is a particular issue in the south Asian community. I have met Asian women in my constituency who have told me they have no idea who they voted for because their husband did it. Needless to say, because of the close family ties and bonds of loyalty, this is not going to be reported to the police or investigated by anyone. I imagine Emmeline Pankhurst will be turning in her grave.
	Apart from electoral fraud taking place and women and young people in some households losing their right to vote, such goings-on play into a narrative that gives impetus to groups such as the British National party and the English Defence League. As someone who played an active role in helping an excellent Conservative candidate unseat a BNP councillor in Pendle this year, I say that we cannot allow electoral fraud, or the suspicion of it, to continue to be used as a reason for undermining community cohesion.
	In my view, the only sensible conclusion is to suspend postal voting by demand and revert to a system in which postal and proxy votes are available only to people who genuinely need them and can provide a compelling reason why they cannot vote on the day. That would save a significant amount of money, which could be invested in better scrutiny of individual voter registration, as outlined in the Bill, and would address the biggest area of fraud in our electoral system. We would disfranchise nobody and could restore confidence in our democracy. Alongside individual registration, an immediate end to postal voting on demand would lead to electoral fraud, and allegations of it, once again becoming exceptional.
	I welcome the Bill’s Second Reading but urge the Government to go much further by ending postal voting on demand. That would end almost all electoral fraud, re-empower women and young people, remove a hobby-horse issue from the far right, bring our democracy in line with international standards and restore true confidence in our electoral system.

Siobhain McDonagh: If I may issue a challenge or wager to the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), it is that there will be proportionately fewer young people on the electoral register in December 2015 than there are today. I support household registration because I believe that the most effective electoral registration officer in my constituency is mum. It is mum who fills in the form and includes her young sons—it is principally young sons, but also young daughters. It is not about people being excluded because of a bullying dad or other figures in the household. The young men I saw queuing up at the polling station at the last general election were there and able to vote because their mums assisted them in that. My concern about individual registration is not about party preference or who wins and loses, but about the disfranchisement of those groups who, for the good of us all and the protection of our society, must be included in the system.
	Those listening to the debate would be forgiven for thinking that all sorts of fraud goes on all the time and that there is plenty of evidence for it, but actually the contrary is true. The report produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Electoral Commission in March 2012 identified remarkably low levels of offences
	relating to voter registration, stating that the offences usually concern financial benefit or identity fraud, which can be investigated separately, rather than electoral fraud. Surely we have all met mums in our constituency advice surgeries whose single person discount has been removed from their council tax bill because the council found that the electoral register recorded adult sons or daughters as living with them, even though they had moved out. That is the problem. It is not about people wanting to go on to the electoral register.

Stewart Jackson: Is the hon. Lady really telling the intelligent and articulate Pakistani women in my constituency that they are not intelligent enough or cannot be trusted to fill in their own individual electoral registration forms and that they have to trust their mums, aunties, dads or uncles to do so, because I do not think that that is about women’s empowerment? It is patronising, backward-looking and potentially extremely fraudulent.

Siobhain McDonagh: I think that that intervention is the result of the hon. Gentleman’s embarrassment at some of his earlier contributions on people who should not be on the electoral register—that gets to the nub of it.
	I accept that I am out of step and that individual registration is going to happen. Given that it is, what can we do to make sure that as many people as possible are on the register?
	Our democracy depends on the fullest electoral register, and that is why I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) referred, and which suggests that anybody who receives a service from the state, gets a library ticket and a driving licence or claims a benefit should have to be on the register. It would be a social contract, whereby the state—the Government—had a connection with people, who were able to vote if they chose to do so. In that way, we would also bring about a connection that people understood—that there was not something called Government money, but an individual’s money, which they gave to the Government or the state to spend.
	The police are not against a comprehensive electoral register, because it is one of the country’s most effective crime databases, so their job will be made much harder if the register becomes less complete. Banks and credit companies will find it harder to tackle fraud, and councils will also find it harder to investigate benefit fraud.
	If millions drop off the register because individual registration is introduced too rapidly and with too few safeguards, there will be trouble ahead. The Government have made some concessions, but, as the Bill stands, the number of people on the electoral roll and electoral participation will decline.

Simon Hart: The hon. Lady may be aware that people gave evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on this topic, but not a single one of the organisations that she mentions raised the concerns that she mentions, so will she explain the basis of the evidence on which she makes her point?

Siobhain McDonagh: I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but the Association of Chief Police Officers and the police are concerned
	about the problems of under-registration because they use the electoral register, and many people are concerned about what is going to happen. If he looks throughout the world, and at America, where about one in six under-25-year-olds is not registered and one in six people who earn less than $20,000 a year is not registered, he will find plenty of evidence, quite apart from that provided by those who I am sure gave very good evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee.
	I am worried about the position of those individually registered people who would still be allowed to vote by post or by proxy in 2015, but I am not concerned for my own electoral benefit, because in the London borough of Merton far more postal voters vote Tory than vote Labour. I am defending the opposition’s vote, rather than my own, but it is the right of people who are unwell, disabled, work away or find it easier to vote by post to have the chance to do so.
	If anybody here went to sign a postal vote today, they would be asked to tick a box, and they would be able to choose to have a postal vote indefinitely—not until December 2015, but indefinitely. That is the contract which, at the moment, the Bill is going to break. According to ACPO and the Electoral Commission, no electoral result has ever been affected by over-registration, but if postal voters lose their vote en masse that will be a very different matter.
	I am concerned that people will not register. The detail of the measure—the fact that we are asking every person in a household to fill in their own form and to put in their own NI number and date of birth—is, practically, an extraordinarily difficult process to go through. As I said when I intervened on the Minister, I am concerned that when the person from the council canvasses they will not be able to fill in the form there and then, even if the individual is able to provide their NI number and date of birth. If the canvasser could do so, that would cut out a lot of bureaucracy.
	I hope that my party will allow me to sit on the Public Bill Committee, because I am interested in allowing people to participate and to become involved. If 20% of the electorate can fall off the register in Northern Ireland when individual registration is introduced, then in a constituency such as mine, where a third of voters move every year and there are highly disadvantaged and disfranchised groups, the number who may fall off the register is absolutely huge, and that is in no party’s interest.

Dan Rogerson: The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made a thoughtful speech, although I disagree with some of what she said. Unlike her, I think that we are going in the right direction with individual voter registration, and most Members’ comments seem to reflect that view. When we last debated this matter in January, in Opposition time, I covered two issues, and because I always strive for consistency in what I do in this House, I will do so again.
	The first issue is people who are fortunate enough to own multiple properties and therefore find themselves able to register to vote in two or more places. The council in Cornwall has started to take action that the former district councils did not in challenging some of
	the registrations by second home owners in Cornwall. I have supported that publicly and have therefore been in receipt of letters from all parts of the United Kingdom from people who have property in north Cornwall; many choose to do so. Second home ownership is a serious issue in terms of property prices, the property market, and so on. I have been at pains to say that I do not believe that all second home owners are a drain on the local area’s services or that they do not contribute to local charities and other organisations.
	Voter registration, however, is a different issue. As I said in the previous debate, I have heard that several people have come across political campaigning in certain elections that targets the second home vote, which is unhealthy. As I said, I have received letters from other parts of the country from people whom Cornwall council has decided to remove from the register on the grounds that they are not resident in Cornwall, and I see trotted out phrases such as “No taxation without representation”. However, I view their property ownership in a similar vein to that of those who operate a business in a constituency but do not live there. Business rate payers have not had the vote for some time. It is the same with other forms of land ownership.
	The accuracy of the register is important, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) pointed out, although he worries that people should be on it but are not, whereas I worry that people are on it but should not be.
	The Government have stated their intention to offer further opportunities for local people to influence decisions in their local area through referendums about, for example, council tax setting or development and neighbourhood plans. A referendum could be held to see whether people want to endorse or to think again about a development framework for a local community. My concern on that score is about places where there is a dire need for affordable housing. It will undoubtedly be in the interests of the people who live in the area for that affordable housing to be built—they might have relatives who are in desperate need of it—but it will probably not be in the interests of those who have second homes there. I therefore suspect—call me cynical if you will, Mr Deputy Speaker—that those who own property in the area, but do not have an interest in whether the community is a living, thriving one, will take a different view on whether a new affordable housing development should be built, particularly in a coastal or village community. Those are crucial questions that we need to get right.
	As I said, the first issue is whether people who have multiple properties should be on the register in multiple locations. If we are moving towards an individual electoral registration system, it ought to be just that: each individual should be on the register in one place and should state where that place is. We could have a discussion about what options there are for determining where somebody should register. I would be happy for a person to opt for which place they use. Another school of thought says that it should be based on the amount of time they spend in each area. There are data, such as those that have been used in the data-matching pilots, that show where a person spends most of their time. That information would be useful for a local authority in determining whether a person is resident in its area.
	We could go further than the data that were authorised for use in the pilots. Many of the cases will relate to the ownership of property. Although pay-as-you-earn information was on the list, registration for capital gains tax purposes was not. In the past, we have heard celebrated examples of people changing the designation of their properties for capital gains tax purposes, depending on which property they were about to sell. If somebody opts to say that a place is their main residence for tax purposes, should they not also say that it is their main residence for electoral registration purposes? That is another form of data that could be useful, but it was not used in the data matching pilots.
	Earlier this week, we discussed the council tax discount. There is still a 10% discount for second homes even in councils that have chosen to make second home owners pay as much council tax as possible. Although my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) was reflecting the opinion of the electorate in Cornwall and other parts of the country in supporting the abolition of the discount, it will present a problem. At the moment, there is an incentive to register a property as a second home, because to get the 10% discount one has to notify the council. That is useful for data mapping and for resolving the registration issues to which I am referring. If the 10% discount goes, we will lose that option. Other methods will therefore have to be used to ensure that the register is accurate.
	Putting the new systems in place presents a huge opportunity, whether paper forms or computer systems are used. I appreciate that the Government do not want to be in the business of deciding what system a local authority should use and exactly how the forms should look. There will inevitably be differences. Having lived in different parts of the country, I know that different councils have different ways of doing things, but we could specify in regulations certain items of data that must be captured. I would welcome a view from the Minister on this point.
	I would like people who are completing the form to be asked whether they have another property that they might consider registering at and, if so, where that property is. We could discuss those sorts of questions in Committee. The form will provide an opportunity for such cross-referencing. At the moment, it would be incredibly difficult for an electoral registration officer to check whether somebody who was registered in two places had voted in both places in a general election. They would have to know where the other property was, get access to the marked register and compare it with their own marked register. For areas such as north Cornwall that have a large number of second homes, that would be very time consuming. If we could capture that information at the point of registration, it would be hugely reassuring.
	I will move on briefly to the second point that I want to cover. The Bill does not include the issue of the edited register. I know that there is a range of views on this matter. I am pleased that the Government do not propose to change the status quo and abolish the edited register. I hope that they will cling to that position, because many organisations rely on the edited register, including charities, those who seek to unite family members who have been separated, credit referencing organisations
	and those who are seeking to catch up with people who are trying to avoid their responsibilities—for instance, by not paying their bills. The edited register is a useful and valuable resource. I am pleased that the Government have not included its abolition in the Bill, despite the view of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. I hope that the Government will stick to that view and that we will not have to revisit the issue.

Frank Dobson: The first time I heard of the proposal for individual registration, I expressed my opposition to the idea. I remain of that opinion, like my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).
	The Bill is unique in the history of all changes to electoral law over the past 180 years. All the others added citizens to the electoral register; this one, as we all know, will do the reverse. Individual registration will reduce the number of people on the electoral roll. Those who support the Bill say that its object is to reduce the scope for electoral fraud, but whatever the intentions behind it, its main effect will be to reduce the number of people entitled to vote. That number will be reduced not by keeping swindlers off the electoral roll but because it will become more inconvenient, complicated and difficult for the law-abiding majority to get on to it.
	The right to vote is the birthright of every British citizen and the most important right granted to those who become British citizens. It is a symbol of our democracy. Over the centuries, British people have struggled, fought and in some cases died for the right to vote. In the last century, women had to battle for it. This afternoon, we are being asked to vote to make it harder for many of our fellow citizens to exercise that democratic right.

Mark Harper: Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that our fellow United Kingdom citizens in Northern Ireland are perfectly capable of registering individually—just as many of them are on the register—but people in Great Britain are not?

Frank Dobson: I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman gives the example of Northern Ireland, because he cannot deny that there was a massive drop in registration immediately after individual registration was introduced. I see no reason to believe that the people of Northern Ireland are inferior to any other people.
	No one can deny that there have been examples of electoral fraud, which are deplorable. We know that, because people have been successfully prosecuted. However, the number of fraudsters is small, otherwise there would be more prosecutions. The most glaring scandal of our electoral system is not that some have swindled their way on to the electoral roll but that as many as 9 million of our fellow citizens have been left off it. That is the scandal that we should be addressing. Instead, the Government want to add to the number of their fellow citizens who will be denied their birthright.
	We are being asked to pass a law to make life more inconvenient and difficult for the law-abiding many, in response to the law-breaking of the wrongdoing few. Instead, we should be targeting more effort, and much more effective effort, at whenever and wherever electoral fraud is suspected.

Eleanor Laing: I am thinking about the figure of 9 million that the right hon. Gentleman gave. Is it not the case that at present, those 9 million people, if there are 9 million—I think there are 3 million—have to go through their “head of household”, whatever that might mean, to register to vote? When the Bill becomes law, they will be able to register individually in their own right, which will give them a power that they do not have at the moment.

Frank Dobson: I do not think that is what will happen in practice. I admit that it may happen in some cases, but in a very large number of cases, particularly in inner-city areas such as my constituency where people live in houses in multiple occupation, it will be more difficult for people to get on the register. Virtually everyone in the Chamber accepts that that is likely to happen, but apparently regards that reduction as a bit of collateral damage in the headlong pursuit of individual registration.

Mark Harper: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken about houses in multiple occupation. At the moment, people in houses in multiple occupation get one form and depend on someone to whom they are not even related to put them on the electoral register. Under our proposals, they will all be written to and all get the chance to register individually. That is a step forward, not backwards.

Frank Dobson: The measures are proposed for areas where there is about a 30% to a 33% turnover of population each year. To whom will the electoral lot write if people have moved on? The proposals do not reflect the practicalities, problems and inconveniences that arise.
	The Bill reminds me of when the police tried to counter football hooliganism by inconveniencing the majority of law-abiding football fans by treating all football fans as hooligans. It did not stop hooliganism. It was only when the police started to identify and target the trouble-making few that widespread hooliganism was stopped and the law-abiding many felt safe again. If we want to deal with the fraud, we need to target the potential fraudsters much better.
	By all means we should ensure that no one votes who should not vote, but surely a far more important task is ensuring that everyone who is entitled to do so can cast their vote. The whole approach is simply back to front. Our first priority should be to get on the register the 6 million people who are not on it—I do not know whether by a slip of the tongue I said 9 million. Even the benighted Electoral Commission admits that the figure is about 6 million. The Bill proposes all sorts of cross-checking of official records, but largely with the object of getting people off the electoral roll. We should cross-check official records and private databases with the object of adding people to the register. The Bill’s object is wrong. Getting more people on the roll should be the main task of all involved in the electoral system: registration officers, the Electoral Commission, the Boundary Commission, civil servants, Ministers, holders of private sector data and political parties.
	The Bill is back to front, dealing with a minor problem compared with the glaring scandal that 6 million of our fellow citizens are not on the electoral roll. Even if there
	are 10,000 fraudsters—I do not accept that there are—we are paying far more attention to them than to the absence of 6 million people who should be on the electoral register. The whole damn thing is back to front and it is about time we took our duties seriously and discharged our obligations in the way in which my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and for Mitcham and Morden suggest. We should go out there, day in, day out, using every possible method we can devise to get on the register people who could legitimately be on the electoral register. The Bill has a cock-eyed priority.

Eleanor Laing: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), because I totally disagree with everything that he has just said, so perhaps we can have a real debate about the amendment and the party political difference on the matter.
	The Bill will improve the electoral register’s comprehensiveness and accuracy. It is long overdue. It is absurd that, in the 21st century, a person’s right to vote depends on the head of household filling in a form. Each individual member of our society should be responsible for registering themselves to vote and should have the vote that they deserve. I have never understood why the Labour party—it is in opposition now, but the situation was the same when it was in government—has been so reluctant for the last two Parliaments to go ahead with that obvious modernisation of our electoral administration system.
	Labour Members now want that modernisation to be delayed. I understand their objection a little better having listened to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, but the arguments of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) simply do not hold water. The Government are not, as he said, rushing pell-mell. The proposals have been discussed in the Chamber and other places for seven years, and this Government have taken two years and two weeks to introduce the Bill. That is not “breakneck speed”.
	The Opposition amendment is ridiculous. They state that
	“the proposals would mean the young, the poor, ethnic minorities and disabled people would face an increased risk of being unregistered and thus excluded from a range of social and civic functions”.
	I entirely take the point that measures must be in place to help people who are disabled or elderly, and there is a duty on local authorities to provide such help. The Government are as concerned as the previous one, and Government Back Benchers are as concerned as Opposition Back Benchers to ensure that people who are elderly or disabled get help to register to vote if they need it.
	How many hon. Members as candidates in elections or as election managers knock on somebody’s door, find that they are not registered, get them a form and ensure that they register? How many of us knock on a door and find an elderly person who might find it difficult to get to the polling station and offer to arrange them a lift? All Members on both sides of the House do that. We sometimes help if we think the person might vote for our candidate rather than someone else’s, which is fair enough, but there is every likelihood that someone from all political parties will knock on that door. Somebody will help that person to get to the polling station or have
	a form sent to someone by the local authority to ensure they are registered to vote. We all do it because it is in our interests.
	However, I am amazed that the Opposition say ethnic minorities will be less likely to register to vote under the Bill, because the opposite is the case. I am thinking particularly about women in certain ethnic minorities who have their right to vote, or indeed to participate in wider public life, restricted by a head of household who exercises the power of a head of household. In this Bill we are giving greater rights to women in those ethnic minorities.
	My greatest concern is the idea that young people will not register to vote if their mother or father does not fill in the form for them. What absolute nonsense! I shall go further: if a young person cannot organise the filling in of a form that registers them to vote, they do not deserve the right to vote—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] I thought that might be controversial, but I do not mind.

Chris Ruane: That argument smacks of the Conservative’s attitude towards the poor in general—the undeserving poor and the deserving poor, the undeserving voters and the deserving voters. In whose political interest is it? It is in the Tory party’s political interest to keep those poor voters off the register.

Eleanor Laing: Not in my constituency, it is not, where a large majority of them vote Tory. I want them on the register. This is simply not a reasonable argument. If someone is responsible enough to exercise their right to vote to decide the Government of this country, or at any level of local government, they should be responsible enough to register to vote.

Stewart Jackson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party should have learnt its lesson from the Bradford West by-election result? It relied on community voting and this kind of backward-looking, pernicious and frankly slightly sleazy and corrupt approach to registration and campaigning. It bit Labour on the backside and it lost by 10,000 votes. It is over.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think there was a question in there somewhere.

Eleanor Laing: Yes, of course I agree with my hon. Friend. His example is a very good one.
	We are getting to the bottom of this, because the Opposition, not I, raised the issue of party political advantage.

Mark Harper: Members who do not think that young people will register are being overly pessimistic. When I visited Northern Ireland, I noted that, with IER, electoral registration officers could interact directly with young people. They go to schools and get more young people registered to vote than we do in Great Britain. Members have a huge opportunity to engage with young people in our schools. We know that often young people are more engaged in politics than their parents.

Eleanor Laing: I agree entirely with the Minister. Of course, it is relatively easy for electoral registration officers to find young people, because up until 16 they are at school or college, and at that point can be
	approached, educated, given a form and encouraged to register to vote when they reach their 18th birthday.
	The Opposition’s argument simply does not hold water. The Bill will give more individual power to every person in this country, particularly the 3 million—I am glad the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras agreed the figure was not 9 million—who should be on the register but are not. It will be far, far easier for them to register on their own behalf, rather than having to do so through a head of household.

Siobhain McDonagh: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Eleanor Laing: Sadly, I do not have time. I am sorry.
	Government Members are pleased that the Minister has listened to the consultation. Speaking on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, I am particularly pleased that he has taken account of some of the points raised during the pre-legislative scrutiny. Once again, the Bill is a good example of how pre-legislative scrutiny works to the advantage of Parliament and the democratic system. In particular, I think of the data matching with the Department for Work and Pensions, keeping people on the register during the transition, and recognising that registering is a civic duty and maintaining a penalty for not doing so. In those areas, the Government deserve to be congratulated on having amended the draft Bill. I also welcome the funding formula for local authorities under section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003, and I am glad that the Minister will be consulting on accountability.
	That brings me to the second half of the Bill, which we have not really debated yet, concerning the powers of electoral registration officers and returning officers. At present, returning officers are accountable to no one. We need a structure whereby they can be ordered to carry out instructions, possibly by the Electoral Commission. We saw during the 2010 general election that the Electoral Commission had no power to direct. On the matter of counting votes at the close of poll, I tabled an amendment, which was supported by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and subsequently became law. Returning officers had to be directed by an amendment to primary legislation to count the votes at the close of poll. That is not the right way to do it; there should be a much better structure, and I therefore welcome clause 17.
	I suggest, however, that the Minister might wish to go further. Something else happened in 2010 that has not been addressed in the Bill. It involved people who were waiting to vote at the close of poll. Eligible electors who are present at a polling station at that time should be allowed to vote if they are within the precincts of the polling station. I appreciate that this matter needs to be carefully defined, but I suggest that the Bill gives the Government an opportunity to introduce rules that would give the presiding officer at a polling station the authority to designate the end of a queue, for example, or the area—not necessarily in the polling station itself—in which people must be present before 10 o’clock in order to vote at 10 o’clock. On the night of the 2010 general election, there was unfair criticism of the Electoral Commission, which did not have the power that the media thought it had to tell electoral registration officers what to do. I hope that the Minister will consider amending the Bill in this respect.

Gavin Shuker: The hon. Lady’s argument seems to be that young people who cannot be bothered to fill in the form should lose the right to vote, but that people who cannot get to the polling station by 10 pm should gain that opportunity—

Eleanor Laing: No—that is completely wrong. My point is that if someone is just outside the polling station—in the school playground, perhaps, or the car park of the village hall—but there is not sufficient space for them to get in through the door, the presiding officer should have the power to designate the end of the queue, so that those people can move forward and vote.

Mark Harper: The Government did listen, and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee agreed with our view that
	“careful planning and allocation of resources are likely to be more effective in ensuring all those who are eligible can access their vote without resorting to legislation.”
	That was our view, the Committee agreed with us, and that is the position at which I think we will remain.

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate the Minister’s position, but perhaps that is something we can look at as the Bill passes through the House.
	There is nothing in the Bill that will give party political advantage to any political party. It is a simple, straightforward modernisation of electoral administration. It is vastly overdue, and it will give more rights, not fewer, to the electors of this country. The amendment before us is based on nonsense, and it should be rejected. The House should support the Bill.

Julie Elliott: I should like to speak in support of the reasoned amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but before I make my points, I should like to comment on some of the issues that have been raised in the debate. I do not recognise the picture of electoral fraud being painted by some Members on the Government Benches. I have worked on elections for 30 years or more, and that is a world that I do not know. That is not to say that electoral fraud does not happen, and when it does, it should be tackled aggressively by the police and the authorities. The number of prosecutions is small, however, and it is perhaps stretching the truth to suggest it constitutes the general behaviour during elections.
	I have sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said about heads of households, and about mums signing up for their families. We will lose that practice, which happens in a lot of places. Also, people already have the right to register individually; they do not have to register on a form filled in by the head of the household.
	My final introductory comment relates to what the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) said. Thank goodness postal voting on a specific issue is not going to return. The first time I applied for a postal vote was when I was expecting my second child. Although my baby was due in the week of an election, because I was active politically, I still wanted to vote. What a palaver it was getting that postal vote, so thank goodness the Bill does not include postal vote provisions.
	Let me proceed to my main arguments. I speak from my personal experience of elections and on the basis of talking to the people who run elections in Sunderland—my local authority, the electoral registration officer and the elections officers. To put Sunderland in context, it has a fairly static population, not one that churns very quickly. We also have a high percentage of postal votes, partly as a result of the postal vote experiment of 2004, I think, when we had all-out postal vote elections. Many people have retained the right to their postal votes because they like voting that way; they find it convenient. The key to any election is not just having an accurate electoral register, but making it as easy as possible for people to cast the vote to which they are entitled.
	Sunderland delivers its counts very quickly—something of which I am proud—and this is based on organisation relating to the whole electoral process. Bill Crawford and Lindsay Dixon, who run our elections office, take great pride in the finest detail of their work. Efficient counts and efficient election days come from the compiling of the electoral register and the planning that goes into running elections.
	I have moved to support individual voter registration in principle, albeit with some reservations, as I have outlined that there have been problems with accuracy and the completeness of the register in the past. That is why, when in government, Labour introduced the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. I welcome the Government’s moving of the annual canvass to 2014, which I think will be a help, but I still have some very serious concerns.
	First, on the data-matching exercise, the accuracy of Department for Work and Pensions records is a problem. As an MP, I regularly get casework relating to that inaccuracy. Numbers are flagged to the wrong people. People are usually made aware that their national insurance records are flagged to the wrong person only when they apply for something like a maternity benefit or whatever. The first time they apply for something, the problem arises. Although we can easily get those problems sorted out as MPs, it does highlight the inaccuracy of DWP records. I have also experienced problems surrounding the recording of multiple births. The DWP is not that good, in my experience, at issuing the correct national insurance numbers. Sometimes people simply do not know their national insurance number. Issues about accuracy are evident.
	One of the Department’s pilot schemes involved a ward in my constituency. Having discussed this with the people running the elections in Sunderland and compiling the electoral register, I found that only about half the people data-matched to DWP records. Given that I mentioned that Sunderland has a fairly static population, that is quite a worrying statistic. If we are talking only about half the people in my constituency, I suggest that the proportion might be significantly higher in a constituency with a higher churn. Another problem is that electoral registration records tend to be property-based, whereas DWP records tend to be name-based. Overall, the data-matching process is going to be time consuming and costly to administer. The Department needs to take note of that.
	My second concern relates to postal and proxy votes during the transitional arrangements. The annual canvass will happen in 2014, when the data-matching exercise will be going on. My main concern relates to households in which people remain on the register. People who
	remain on the register because they are on the household and DWP records will automatically retain their postal votes if they have applied for indefinite ones. However, if authorities are satisfied that they live at those addresses because they have checked their own housing benefit or council tax records, those people will remain on the register but their indefinite postal votes will fall, and they will have to reapply. I think that some confusion will be caused when one member of a household retains a postal vote and another does not. Some of the charities that represent people with disabilities fear that such people may be disfranchised.
	In my constituency, there is currently a mini-canvass in February. People are sent a letter telling them either that they are on the register or that they are not, and that they do or do not have postal votes. They are asked to respond to the letter for the purpose of accuracy, and very few do not do so; it receives a massive response. I think that that is a good model to follow and that adopting it would mop up some of the problems with postal votes, particularly in the early years of the transition. I hope that the Government will consider providing funds for it. The mini-canvass ensures that there are very few problems on election day, because if time has been taken to get the register and the postal vote records right, not many people turn up wanting to vote and finding that they are unable to do so.
	My third concern relates to online registration. I have already mentioned problems involving national insurance numbers. Not everyone knows their national insurance number. We saw a demonstration last week, and it was clear that if people did not have their national insurance numbers, the system would stop. We raised the issue, and it is possible that it will be investigated.

Chris Ruane: I asked an outside computer expert at the demonstration what would happen when people did not have their national insurance numbers. I was told “We are working on that.” We know what has been said and what has happened in the past. Computer programs costing hundreds of millions of pounds have been put in place, and they have not worked. We need to get this one right.

Julie Elliott: I could not agree more. It is not that I am opposed to online registration—we must move with the times, and people do more and more things online—but getting it right is very important. I have read about secondary ID involving passports and driving licences, but we should bear in mind that not everyone has a passport or a driving licence.
	The Government need to listen to the experts who have been involved in the pilots and who run elections and compile registers, because they are the people who really understand the details. The Government also need to ring-fence enough money. I welcomed what the Minister said about section 31 funding, but the provision of enough money is the key, particularly in the early years. The way in which the money will be distributed or bid for is not yet clear; that needs to be considered carefully and spelt out to us before the next stage of the process.
	A serious look should be taken at the rules governing postal voting. As we all know, in the world of cuts upon cuts in which we are currently living, local authorities’
	finances are very tight. My own authority has experienced and is still experiencing massive cuts. However, I think that the Government should put money into ensuring that the system works, because otherwise the results could be disastrous.
	I think that the proposal to use the 2014 canvass for the next round of boundary reviews is a dangerous one with massive implications. It is possible that we will not end up with the best register that we have ever had at the first attempt: as everyone knows, when something is done for the first time there are teething problems. It is not the best way of ensuring democracy in this country, and I think that it is a very negative step.
	We get things right in Sunderland because we are organised, and because we provide proper resources for elections and electoral registers. If we get the register right to start with, we can get the postal and proxy votes right, and if there are enough people doing the job on the ground, the elections themselves will be run properly.
	I hope the Government listen to the concerns I have raised. I have been as un-party political as possible, because this is too important to get wrong. Members on both sides of the House have concerns, and this needs to be done properly.

Mark Williams: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). She approached this subject in a constructive manner, and I hope to do the same while offering some suggestions as to how the process could be improved.
	It would be churlish not to celebrate the differences between the current proposals and the Government’s original announcements in the White Paper and the documents that went to the Select Committee for pre-legislative scrutiny. That demonstrates that the Government have taken account of the consultation and have listened to what representatives from a range of organisations have said. They have made a lot of significant changes to the Bill as a result. Among the most welcome are the changes to ensure that we get as full an electoral register as possible. The negativity of Opposition Members astounds me. This should be an opportunity to enhance the electoral list, and build a bigger list. I am shocked by some of the comments I have heard.
	Many of the issues raised in Labour’s Opposition day debate have been addressed. The opt-out provision has been removed from the form. There was a great deal of controversy about that, but the Government listened and responded. The Government have also yielded on the civil penalty issue, and there has been action on the question of the canvass in 2014. As the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) said, the new individual voter registration scheme enables individuals to register and be responsible for their own vote, rightly taking responsibility away from the head of the household for registering everybody in the household, which was an outdated notion. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) about the importance and significance of mothers, but we must all reach a point in our lives when we can make a judgment on these matters ourselves.
	Registering to vote is a civic duty, and having a penalty for those who fail to do so serves to reflect that. That has been in place for almost 100 years, since 1918,
	when the last Liberal-Conservative coalition introduced a £20 fine, a sum that is equivalent to about £3,500 in today’s money. Since then, with all-party agreement, the House has agreed to maximum fines of £50 in 1969, £100 in 1983, £400 in 1986 and £1,000 in 2001. I welcome the fact that the Government are moving along those lines in respect of civil penalties for individuals. Having no offence would also have meant there was no incentive for local authorities to follow up on hard-to-reach voters, who have as much right to be enfranchised as anyone else.
	The Government have also listened to the concerns about the boundary changes, and concessions have been made. The Government are as keen as anyone that we should have a complete and responsive electoral list.

Wayne David: On that point, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it would be a good idea if the Government listened to all the informed opinion, and delayed the implementation of a full new register until after the boundary changes?

Mark Williams: The Opposition have been wallowing in conspiracy theories in this regard. The Government have made a huge number of concessions in order to ensure we have a complete electoral list on which to base the new boundaries. The Government have responded to the concerns expressed about the use of the register for the jury service pool, and about credit check companies and mortgage providers using it to check an individual’s background. Again, those considerations have been reflected in the changes made by the Government.
	I look forward to hearing more from the Government about the level of the penalties that will be set. I share the impatience of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) in that regard, but the Government have assured us that during the Bill’s passage, we will have the relevant draft secondary legislation. The hon. Gentleman is right: we need to hear what penalties the Government have in mind and what discussions have taken place on this issue. I will welcome the speedy emergence of that draft secondary legislation.
	I am also pleased that the Bill states that the money raised will go to the Treasury, so that local authorities cannot be accused of using the failure to register as a money-making venture. I wonder whether the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), can say whether the fine will be on the scale of a parking fine, for example. Will it operate in a similar way—I hesitate to use that example; there are many disreputable car-parking companies in our constituencies—and will the fine increase if payment is not received within two weeks, as happens with some parking fines? If, after one month, the person fined still has not taken any action to register, will the fine be repeated? These are legitimate questions, and we look forward to the speediest possible emergence of that information.
	I am very glad that the Government have decided to move the annual canvass from 2013 to 2014, so that the gap between it and mass mailing is shorter. Hopefully, there will therefore be fewer significant changes. I remain a little concerned, however—in the spirit of consensus, this is perhaps another area of agreement between me and the hon. Member for Caerphilly—that clause 6 allows the relevant Minister to abolish the annual canvass.
	I have heard the rationale behind this provision—that future data matching will be sufficiently developed to ensure that an annual canvass is not necessary—and in that regard the example of Northern Ireland is often cited. I would like clarification of that rationale, but I do note that clause 6 also gives the Minister the power to reinstate the annual canvass.
	I am pleased that there will be the opportunity to register online, a positive step that will appeal to a lot of young people. Like the hon. Member for Sunderland Central, I saw the presentation, which was impressive; however, there is a great deal of work to be done. The point has been made—I made it myself in an intervention—about the ease or otherwise with which people can access their own national insurance number. I was surprised to hear the Minister say that only 5% of people could not readily access their NI number. A quick survey of my office in this place revealed that I was the only one out of four people who knew their NI number. I doubt whether most of our constituents study their NI number on their payslips; perhaps they are more inclined to look at the other numbers. We need clarity here, and to develop seamless ways in which people can access their NI number.
	As I have said before in this House, it is all very well talking about accessing Government services on the internet in parts of the country where it is easy to do so: for those in west Wales—Ceredigion, for example—the situation is very different. I am afraid that at the moment, 20% of my constituents cannot access anything on the internet—the Government do have the worthy aspiration to roll out broadband across the country—so there are limitations. That is why the traditional method of the annual canvass is so significant in the registration of voters.
	I was pleased to learn from the Government that funding will be set aside for each local authority to implement the changes associated with IVR, and that extra money will be available through bidding. We can all envisage places in our constituencies where that extra money would be put to good use.
	Ceredigion may not be characterised in the same way that inner-city constituencies have been, but I represent two universities. Students are traditionally hard-to-get-at voters at election time and before. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) speaks from a sedentary position; I have no difficulty in speaking to my student voters, but registering these people is challenging. I am well used to seeing the piles of electoral registration forms heaped up in student pigeonholes in halls of residence and in houses in multiple occupation, of which there are a huge number in my constituency. Huge numbers of forms sit there untended as the months go by. They will require extra resources but, again, the Government have made those resources available and intimated that they will be available.
	I reinforce what the Minister said about the value of education. I used to be a teacher, and I believe there is great merit in using the education system, as we have heard has happened in Northern Ireland, to promote the registration of voters from sixth forms. That is a practical way of engaging people in citizenship and assisting local authorities in registering new voters.
	I would also like to hear a little more about the dissemination of best practice and the standardisation of electoral registration forms across the country. As the
	Minister knows, some very good examples are available. We have heard about Sunderland Central’s good record in these matters. In order to please the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), I wish to mention the example of Denbighshire, which has sent out some extremely effective forms and follow-up forms. We need to disseminate the practice from Denbighshire across other areas of the country. Crucially, such forms need to be bilingual in Wales.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) is concerned about the issue of second homes and the prominence of items on electoral registration forms for people who own two residences. I want the civil penalty and the possible penalties that may be levied to have real prominence on those forms.
	I also wish to highlight the concerns voiced by Scope, and I await the response from our Front-Bench team on the issue of the carry-over of voters from 2014 to 2015, and on whether all postal and proxy voters have to re-register. I was heartened by what the Minister said about this applying only to those people who have not yet been dealt with through the data-matching pilots. If that is not the case, the prospect of so many people who have been used to having a postal or proxy vote for so many years, election after election, not being included is very alarming. That needs to be addressed.
	I sum up by saying that this Government have made huge progress on this Bill. There are still matters that need to be ironed out and that we need to reflect on in Committee, but compared with where we were at the time of the Labour Opposition motion before, the Bill is vastly improved. That is why Government Members will be supporting it tonight.

Chris Ruane: It is a pleasure and an honour to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who has been a staunch campaigner on these issues for many years, ever since I informed him that his Bronglais ward had the worst registration rate in the whole of Wales, at just 56%.
	I wish to touch on a number of issues. I have had a big interest in this subject for 10 years, and I have tabled about 300 parliamentary questions and spoken many times in Parliament on it. We all thought that there were 3 million to 3.5 million people missing off the register. Two or two and a half years ago, I had a meeting with people from Experian, who told me that the real figure was nearer 6 million to 6.5 million. I took that figure to the Electoral Commission, which said that it was not true. It then undertook its own research and, lo and behold, it said last November that 6 million to 6.5 million people were missing off the register—but they were not the same as Experian’s missing 6 million, so even more people may be missing off the register. I mentioned in an intervention that I think that the private sector has a role to play in helping us to improve the registers. It has the detail already and we should be listening to it.
	The profiles of the missing 6 million people include, in the main, the poor, those living in social or council housing, those on the minimum wage, the unemployed, black and ethnic minority people and young people. At the moment, 6 million people fitting those profiles are
	off the register and had the changes gone ahead as originally proposed, the Electoral Commission—not Chris Ruane, Labour MP—said that that figure would have gone up to 16 million. We would have been left without a properly functioning democracy. I give credit to the Government for listening to many calls from Members on both sides of the House and from civic society, but the Electoral Commission has stated that the registration rates could go down as low as 65%.
	I want to contrast the previous Labour Government’s attitude to constitutional issues with that of the Conservative and Liberal Government over the past two years right up until very recently. We never treated the issues as party political, but pursued them in the interests of democracy. In 2001, Labour instituted a rule that took people—often quite poor people—off the register if they failed to sign their electoral registration form for two years on the trot, as we wanted an accurate register. Millions disappeared, mainly Labour voters. We did not do that for party political reasons, as it worked against us.
	In 1998, we proposed proportional representation for European elections. We did not have to do that, but we did because it was the right thing to do, and Labour suffered in Wales, going from four MEPs to one. We had a Scottish consensus on Scottish devolution that lasted for three or four years, and we introduced PR knowing that Labour would not get full control.

Mark Harper: Let me take the hon. Gentleman back to the subject of the European election system. He said that the previous Government always operated by consensus, so why did they feel the urge to ram that legislation through using the Parliament Acts?

Chris Ruane: It was the right thing to do. I personally did not think that that was the right thing to do, but my Government did and they overrode my voice from the Back Benches.
	When PR for local government was introduced in Scotland, it worked against the Labour Government. Labour delivered individual electoral registration in 2009. Throughout our period in office, we operated consensually and for a better functioning democracy.
	What happened under the previous Conservative Government? The poll tax was pursued as a means of pushing people off the register and Dame Shirley Porter undertook social cleansing in Westminster to secure party political advantage. This Government’s original proposals sent a shiver down my spine, much like that recently experienced by Ms Lagarde. The agreed date for individual electoral registration, on which there was consensus, was brought back from 2015 to 2014 and the date of the next election was put back to the last possible date of 2015. Either the Deputy Leader of the House or the Parliamentary Secretary can intervene at this point, as we still have not had a satisfactory answer on the reason for the decisions. Was it happenstance or accident, or was there a political agenda?

Mark Harper: It is very simple. We put through the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 because we thought that it was sensible and that the Prime Minister’s right to pick an election date at a time of his choosing to suit his party political convenience was wrong. We took that power away and that was a step forward.

Chris Ruane: The Minister has given me half the answer, but why did the Government bring the agreed date of 2015 for IER forward to 2014?
	The Tories have mainly acted on such issues with a party political advantage as the main thing that they want to pursue. The equalisation of seats should not have gone ahead with 6 million people missing from the register. I do not want to be too curmudgeonly, however.

Eleanor Laing: I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument on party political advantage, but is he actually suggesting that someone who is likely to vote Labour is more likely to fail in their civic duty to register to vote than someone who is likely to vote Conservative?

Chris Ruane: I am saying that the Electoral Commission’s research into who has been left off the register shows that in the main they are unemployed or low paid; live in social or council housing; are black or ethnic minority people; or are young students. The hon. Lady can draw her own conclusions about which way they would vote, but I do not think they would vote Tory.
	I want to get on to a more positive agenda and give those on the Front Bench some praise for what they have done. That have listened, to some degree, and there are four aspects that I shall highlight. I want also to praise the Labour Front-Bench team, the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr David), who has pursued the issue like a dog with a bone. We would not have had the concessions from the Government without his doggedness; I use that word guardedly.
	Civic society has rallied on the issue. Two groups in particular answered the clarion call two years ago, when the proposals were announced—the Electoral Reform Society and Unlock Democracy. They have helped take the issue out to wider society, to civic society, and made people aware of it—the judiciary, the police, Operation Black Vote, Scope and other organisations. I pay tribute to all those and to the academics who provided us with research. The progress that has been made is good, as far as it goes. From being a lifestyle choice, which in my view was obscene, the right to register has become a civic duty. I thank Ministers for that.
	The annual canvass, which was not in place previously, will be in place for 2014. That is progress. The fixed penalty notice is probably the biggest progress that we have had. Again, I thank the Front-Bench team for that. I hate to say it, but threats and fines work. The hon. Member for Ceredigion referred to Denbighshire county council’s electoral registration form. In the middle of that form, in big bold letters, is a message: “If you do not fill in this form, you are liable to a £1,000 fine.” People will be visited and told three times that they are liable to this fine. The local chief executive, Mohammed Mehmet, will write to the individual—I have the letters and the forms, if anybody wants a copy—saying, “My electoral registration officers have been to your household three times. You have refused to return the form. We are now turning this over to our legal department.” If standardisation is to come about—another aspect that I welcome—I urge the Front-Bench team to look at best practice in Denbighshire.
	I am pleased with the carry-over from the old register to the general election in May 2015, but why could it not be carried over to 1 December, the freeze date for the next boundary review? It is only six months further down the line. Opposition Members feel that it is a boundary review stitch-up, done in the knowledge that the electoral registration rates will go down by 10% in that critical period. That will leave 10% of probably the poorest people in the country off the register. That could be avoided. The Minister could come to the Dispatch Box and say, “Right, we will carry it over an extra six months,” and he would have cross-party consensus on taking these matters forward.
	I am concerned about downgrading the role of the Electoral Commission. I have been a fierce critic of the Electoral Commission over the years. The changes that Labour introduced in 2005-06 took too long to implement. We did not insist on electoral registration officers doing the job that they were being paid to do, but in the past year or so the Electoral Commission has been a star turn. It has highlighted what the impact would be if the original proposals had gone ahead, again saying that electoral registration rates would have gone down to 65%. The commission may have been punished for its effectiveness over the past year.
	As the secondary legislation unfolds, a lot more political flack may be coming. We need an independent arbiter who can give a straight-down-the-line view. If we downgrade the role of the Electoral Commission, we are taking away a valuable element providing that independent view.
	I understand the Government’s predicament on fixed penalty notices. They do not want to create a system whereby local authorities can go out and fire those notices left, right and centre and get lots of money for themselves, which would be wrong, but the local authorities that will spend the most money will often be the poorest in the country. There will be cuts to social services and education. They will be forced to decide whether to prioritise electoral registration, and canvassing is something they are required to do by law, knocking on the doors of non-responders three times, which is costly. Those local authorities need financing for that work. I ask for that to be considered so that some of the money from the Treasury can be given back to the authorities with the biggest work load.
	We need the details of the secondary legislation to be published concurrently so that we can judge exactly what the impact will be. I am afraid that trust will not do on this one; we tried trust two years ago and got only an element of it back in the past couple of weeks.
	I mentioned online registration in an intervention. I went to see a demonstration of it in the Jubilee Room, and when I asked what happens for those who do not have their number, it was like throwing a spanner in the works. I was told that no one had yet got on top of it. The Minister said that 5% of people will be unable to find their registration number or their national insurance number. What happens to the ethnic minorities who do not have a good understanding of the English language? What happens to people who are functionally illiterate? We will send them letters telling them to go here or there, apply for a form, then fill it in and put it online, but that will not happen. Again, it will tend to be the poorest in society who will be punished as a result.
	We need precise details on how the £108 million of funding will be ring-fenced and spent. If it is allocated for registration, it should be spent on registration. We saw in the emergency Budget in June 2010 that the first thing the Government slashed was the participation fund for increasing registration, which was £2 million over three years. It was not a priority then, but I hope it will be in future.
	The Government point to Labour and say that we did nothing for 13 years and had 6 million people off the register. There is a golden opportunity to change that, but the Minister said at the outset that after all is done and dusted and all these changes have been implemented they hope to have 6 million people—perhaps a different 6 million—still off the register. I do not think that that is good enough.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Order. This debate has to finish at 7 o’clock. In order to fit in everybody who has been in the Chamber waiting patiently to speak, I regret that it is necessary for me to reduce the time limit to nine minutes, from the next speaker. Interventions should occur only if they are absolutely necessary and truly interventions, because otherwise we will not even get those Members in.

Simon Reevell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate and, indeed, to follow the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). The electoral process is something that we all have experience of, but it is clear from the contribution we have heard today that we have encountered it in a number of different forms. If it varies between the good, the bad and the ugly, I am afraid that I have seen at first hand its downright ugly form. The central purpose of the Bill is to ensure that individual voters retain ownership and control of their vote right up to the moment when, either by post or in person, their vote is cast, which is absolutely crucial.
	I realise that to many that is simply a statement of the very obvious. The idea that the voter retains control of their vote until it is cast is anticipated almost with certainty at every election, but unfortunately, owing to the actions of a relatively small number of individuals in one part of my constituency, it represents a change that is essential and, sadly, long overdue.
	For some years in the Savile Town area of my constituency, annual elections have gone hand in hand with annual allegations of voter fraud and intimidation. In 2010, I saw the intimidation for myself. I witnessed groups of young men outside a polling station, whispering, spitting, gesturing, milling around and pushing in front of me. Having to leave a group of people to guard cars should not be a part of polling day, nor should warnings to stay away or to leave.
	I have spoken to the police officers who have to deal with the situation, and I have heard the accounts of those manning the polling stations. When I saw that the Bill contained provisions for police community support officers to enter polling stations, my first reaction was that it was to allow reinforcements to be called, not that they would operate as an alternative to police constables.
	I have no doubt that the enthusiasm of a small number of people to try to ensure victory for their side continues to result in behaviour that is not only inappropriate, but unlawful. Persistent rumours and allegations of postal vote fraud accompany that intimidatory behaviour. This year, the local authority raised concerns with the police about the similarity of the handwriting on a large number of postal votes; and some people turned up to vote only to be told that, according to the register, they already had done so by post, when they clearly had not or, at least, had not done so themselves. I do not know whether the result of the election was affected, but that really is the point: I do not know.
	You may wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, why that behaviour has been going on for so long. Why have the police not investigated it? Why has no one got to the bottom of the repeated allegations of postal fraud which, if untrue, represent a dreadful slur on the community concerned? According to local people, including those affected, the answer is said to involve that word: community.
	When asked to take this year’s allegations seriously, the police, so the complaint goes, referred to “community sensitivities” and showed a reluctance to engage which has defined their response in previous years. Why is that? It is because all those who are said to be involved are from Savile Town’s Asian community, a minority of individuals who appear to insist that they know best and who take it upon themselves to ensure that someone else’s vote is cast however they think fit.
	It is hugely insulting to the vast majority of Savile Town’s community that the police appear reluctant to act. That is so, whether the police are prepared to regard sensitivities as more important than the democratic process, or whether the police think it appropriate to make an allowance due, as they put it, to a
	“lack of understanding of the process.”
	The former is to ignore the legitimate sensitivities of the vast majority, who must resent this issue being the local headline every time there is a ballot, and who no doubt want it resolved once and for all. The latter is to make condescending allowances that excuse deliberate criminal activity—and is offensive in the assumption that, somehow for some people in Savile Town, it is all too difficult.
	I thought it appropriate to raise with the chief constable of West Yorkshire my intention to refer to this topic and my observations regarding the attitude of the police. I did so not least because he might seek to challenge the assertion that the issue is being held at arm’s length, or is regarded as too difficult, because of the matter of race. I know that the chief constable of West Yorkshire is a busy man—to be fair, so is the Member for Dewsbury—but the message left on my telephone by his assistant, informing me that the chief constable had been busy on Monday, was travelling on Tuesday to Manchester for a conference and, therefore, could not speak to me, might seem to confirm the reticence repeatedly complained of by the vast majority, who are the decent citizens of Savile Town and who have rightly bemoaned the lack of proactive investigation. It also does little to silence those who would try to incite hatred in Dewsbury by saying that people in Savile Town are somehow treated differently by the police. The lesson of the recent trial arising from the dreadful abuse in Rochdale is that all communities must be treated equally where there is evidence to suggest that police investigation is required.
	Perhaps the most important right is the right to vote. Perhaps the most important responsibility is to exercise that right in accordance with the law. If the Bill encourages and facilitates that right and assists in the exercise of that responsibility, it will be a step in the right direction.

Paul Blomfield: The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) made guarded and thoughtful remarks, but I am concerned about the undertones of some Government Members’ speeches. To my knowledge, in the city of Sheffield, which is a large and multicultural city, only one person has ever been convicted of electoral fraud—fairly widespread electoral fraud—and he was a member of our white community and, indeed, a member of one of the coalition parties.

Chris Ruane: Which one?

Paul Blomfield: I will tell you later.
	I want to express my concern about how this Bill will profoundly undermine our democracy by reference to two groups in my constituency, the first of which is those in urban areas. Let me compare my constituency with that of my political neighbour, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg). My constituency is at the heart of Sheffield. It is an inner-city, multicultural area with large council estates, two universities, and a high level of electoral turnover. As a result, 17% of households already have nobody on the electoral register. The Deputy Prime Minister’s constituency consists of our leafy suburbs; it is monocultural with large areas of comfortable owner-occupation, a stable population, and only 4% of households with nobody on the register. There is therefore already a huge disparity between the number of people we represent and the number of registered voters. Assuming, on the basis of current boundaries, that we both have an average of 74,000 registered voters, the Deputy Prime Minister is representing an adult population of about 77,000 while I am representing about 89,000 people.
	That situation will be exacerbated in 2020 if the 2015 boundary review is based on the register that many people fear. If we do have 60% registration levels, a redrawn Sheffield Central after the 2015 boundary review will have an adult population of up to 123,000—some 50% more than in Sheffield, Hallam. I recognise that the level may not be 60%, but we should consider seriously that significant imbalance in a depleted inner-city constituency. It is certainly not democratic and certainly not right.
	Many of the people who will be excluded from the register are precisely those who form a huge proportion of our casework, and their voice in this Parliament will be reduced. Together with the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, the Bill is leading us towards a US-style democracy that excludes the disadvantaged and disengaged at election times and instead focuses on the needs of the more privileged, thereby poisoning our politics. The Deputy Prime Minister has rather grandly compared his ambitions for our democracy with those of the Great Reform Act of 1832. [ Interruption. ] I understand the reason for the laughter. The Great Reform Act increased representation
	for our cities, whereas this measure, together with the boundary review and the other reforms, will reduce the voice of our cities.
	The other issue I want to talk about is young people, particularly students. Not all students are young, but the vast majority are, and will increasingly be so as a result of this Government’s policies, with reports this week revealing a drop in the number of mature students. Many of those young people are worryingly disillusioned with democratic politics. The Liberal Democrats’ broken pledge on tuition fees has not only damaged their party but damaged the trust in politics of a whole generation of young people. When I talk to students on the doorstep, they are clear that that experience of raised expectations and broken hope has led them to not want to participate in the system.
	Both Sheffield’s great universities are in my constituency and 31,800 students live in it. Some of them live there for 31 weeks a year and many for 52. It is their main place of residence and they contribute to the economy and life of the city. They have a right to have their voice heard in elections.
	The university of Sheffield, in common with many universities across the country, has a system of block registration for all eligible students in university accommodation. That will end with this Bill. I assume that the Government do not think that our universities are guilty of electoral fraud, so why is there a need to outlaw block registration?
	The students union finance officer, Harry Horton, explained the impact to me:
	“When students first arrive at University and live in halls, amongst all the other things that are going on, registering to vote often isn’t a priority and it is comforting to know that it’s often done automatically. If this is changed then it would become another form to fill in during the whirlwind first few weeks away from home and some students, particularly those not engaged in democracy, will not be registered”.
	Crucially, students will be particularly under-registered in the first term of each academic year. The students unions of both the universities in my constituency run vigorous electoral registration campaigns in the run-up to elections—in February, March and April—and those campaigns work.
	The Bill will effectively exclude tens of thousands of students—my constituents—from the electoral roll in December 2015, and therefore from consideration when the boundaries are redrawn, denying them an effective voice.

Eleanor Laing: Surely the hon. Gentleman is vastly underestimating the ability of the average student to fill in a form. We are talking about people who have three A-levels and who, in most cases, are going to get a difficult degree. They can fill in a form to allow themselves to vote.

Paul Blomfield: I am simply reflecting the views that have been expressed to me by the elected representatives of the students, and I take their concerns seriously.
	The students at the university of Sheffield have tried hard, but unsuccessfully, to meet their other constituency MP, the Deputy Prime Minister, who represents a smaller number of them, albeit still several thousand. I understand why he is less keen to meet students now than he was during the general election campaign, when he worked
	the two campuses relentlessly with his party’s unequivocal promise on tuition fees. I challenge him today—I ask the Minister to convey this to him—to agree, finally, to meet the representatives of students in his constituency to discuss their concerns.
	There is no good reason to accelerate the timetable for introducing individual electoral registration, other than to have the system in place for the 2015 boundary review in the knowledge of what impact that will have on the 2020 general election. The Minister rightly talked in his opening remarks about the importance of the integrity of the electoral system and of people’s confidence in its integrity. However, the Government’s plans, taken with the 2011 Act, will understandably be seen to be some of the most outrageous gerrymandering seen in this country. That will undermine confidence in the system. The Government are riding roughshod over democracy in the interests of party advantage. I urge them to think again.

Priti Patel: I have taken a degree of interest in the Bill, but unlike the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) I cannot say that I have had a 10-year interest in the matter, as I am a new Member of Parliament.
	This debate has thrown up a wide range of issues. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell), because he highlighted some important issues. That is why I support the Bill and the commitment of the Government to reduce electoral fraud, to restore confidence in the electoral register and to rebuild trust in politics. I say that as a newish MP. It is clear that over the past decade trust in the political process and political parties has seriously declined. Let us face it, no party has been immune from scandals or sleaze allegations. The Bill is a welcome step in the right direction.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury and other Members highlighted some appalling incidents of electoral fraud. Large numbers of voters have appeared in a single property, or political activists have harvested postal votes. The Bill is vital because it will uphold the integrity of the electoral system and reinforce the fundamental principle of one person, one vote. It will make it more difficult for people to attempt to manipulate elections by abusing the electoral register.
	A lot of Members who have come to the House since 2010 have had various experiences of elections, such as local elections, European elections and their own general election campaigns. They bring to the House fresh, live examples of what they have seen in their constituencies.
	The Electoral Commission has since 2003 advocated the introduction of individual electoral registration. We had a startling reminder of the need for the change in the build-up to this year’s London elections. I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will recall that during the mayoral election campaign, one newspaper—I wish I had brought it with me—had front-page stories week after week about reports and allegations of the electoral system being abused in Tower Hamlets. Appallingly, we heard of ghost voting in a by-election in that borough, with some flats containing eight people
	who were registered to vote and political activists going around the homes of vulnerable voters harvesting their blank postal vote ballot papers. There was apparently also a huge proliferation in the number of people applying for postal votes. Thankfully, a police investigation is now taking place, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury highlighted the fact that he had a difficult time in getting the police engaged with some of the problems in his constituency.
	The failure of election officials to pick up on problems such as a large number of people in a small dwelling being registered to vote reflects badly on our democracy. That is why this is absolutely the right Bill. It will support individuals’ right to secure their place on the electoral register, and it will reduce the chance of people being able to abuse the electoral process in such a way.
	It is essential that robust action is taken against election officials and authorities that fail to take reasonable and proactive steps to stamp out illegal practice. My hon. Friend the Minister highlighted the good deal of thought that has gone into the Bill. Many constructive steps are being taken, such as resources going to local authorities and data-matching pilots. I hope that all local authorities will embrace those measures and be proactive in resolving problems and considering electoral registration.
	I also welcome the extension of the election timetable to 25 working days, particularly because it will help British citizens overseas and members of our armed forces deployed abroad. Our forces are stationed in some of the most dangerous places in the world, and they risk their lives every day. In the general election, they were effectively disfranchised. The changes in the Bill will give them more time to receive and return their ballot paper.
	Up the road from my constituency is the neighbouring constituency of Colchester. My constituents are immensely proud of the courage and bravery that those at Colchester garrison show, and of what they do in peacekeeping operations and in battle. Everything possible should be done to guarantee that they can vote, and the measures in the Bill will help them to do so.
	I wish briefly to touch on voting as a civic duty. As a relatively new Member of Parliament, as I go around my constituency, I am impressed and feel optimistic about young people when I visit schools. When I talk to them about elections, the electoral process and democracy, they look at the system with a great deal of hope, and they want to participate. School elections go on all the time—for school councils, for example. A great deal of positive work can be done, and the Bill is a welcome step forward.
	I will raise one highly topical issue, with which the Parliamentary Secretary is familiar. I seek reassurance from him that the Bill will not be used as a vehicle to enable prisoners to receive the right to vote. We have heard the latest position, and the Prime Minister spoke about the matter today. It is a serious issue, and I trust that the Parliamentary Secretary will give an assurance in his winding-up speech that the Bill will not be used in that way.
	I welcome the Bill, which is a good step in the right direction. It should not be considered through a party political lens.

Jonathan Edwards: I want to use the opportunity this afternoon to repeat the concerns that I first raised in January in an Opposition day debate on the subject.
	First, I am concerned that, although the proposals have a worthy goal, we are ignoring the difficulties posed by the dual aims of ensuring the highest number of registrations on the electoral roll, while at the same time solving the problem of electoral fraud. Secondly, and especially given the experience of an 11% drop in electoral registration in Northern Ireland in the immediate aftermath of the introduction of IER, I am concerned that the proposals are being introduced at the same time as other major changes, such as the equalisation of constituency sizes, based on the electoral roll. There is surely consensus that the preferred outcome is that all adults who should be registered on the electoral roll are registered, and that they participate in elections. Everybody should be on the electoral roll and have the opportunity to cast their vote.
	The principle of individual electoral registration is positive, in that electors should take upon themselves the responsibility to register to vote in their own right, rather than its being done under the aegis of a household. All relevant people should be willing and able to register, and have the same opportunity to do so. However, there may be a disconnect between the equality of opportunity to register, where all relevant people may do so, and the equality of outcome, where all relevant people do so.
	The Electoral Commission reported in December 2010 that 6 million people were not registered across the UK, with register completion rates of between 85% to 87%. It is unclear to me how IER, which creates a greater barrier to registration, will ensure that as many people as possible are on the electoral roll. While accepting that it is always a worry, the number of cases of electoral fraud that have been uncovered are minimal compared with the need to get those 6 million people on to the electoral register. We therefore welcome the decision to drop the idea of voluntary registration, which was raised in the White Paper, and to maintain the civic duty.
	Electoral registration has a greater relevance than ever following the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, which will create constituencies that are designed to have a number of voters within 5% of a UK constituency mean, predicated on the number of electors on the electoral roll, rather than the actual adult population.
	Many people are particularly concerned about registration among certain socio-economic and age groups, including more transient populations, such as young people, who move house frequently, and those who are already disconnected from civic society, and may not make the effort to register.
	When IER was first introduced in the north of Ireland, the number on the roll dropped initially by 11% and has only gradually been rebuilt over time, in part, one might say, because of the strong community links that exist in the Six Counties. We must avoid that drop in registration occurring in the first place.
	The Government have already announced a process of data-matching pilots and we shall watch their progress keenly. We welcome the moving of the autumn 2013 canvass back to spring 2014 to prevent significant
	deterioration of the registers before the introduction of IER, although that will presumably mean an 18-month gap and deterioration in the registers from this year’s canvass until spring 2014. How will that affect EROs and preparation of registers for the European elections of June 2014, and the Scottish independence referendum, which is due to be held later that year?
	The effects of the Bill moved a little closer to home for me this week, with the publication of a Green Paper on future electoral arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales by the Secretary of State for Wales. I do not intend to discuss that very interesting Green Paper in detail during the debate, but in short the Secretary of State highlighted options for constituency size in Wales, based on the same principle as that for equalisation of numbers on the electoral roll for Westminster constituencies: whether we have 30 or 40 Assembly constituency seats. That means that the concerns I have raised about the effect of electoral registration matter regardless. Members will know that during the progress of that 2011 Act, I consistently criticised the principle of ignoring community, historical and geographical links in the formation of new constituencies. Non-registration therefore becomes crucial in both Assembly and Westminster elections. Not only is a non-registered person unable to vote and disfranchised, but the population of the constituency decreases, because those “non-people” are not counted.
	Of similar importance is the length of time for which registration is carried forward under IER as we move to the new system. The Minister can correct me if I have misunderstood this, but it is generally considered that most people who are moved forward will be registered in 2015 for the Westminster elections, but will not be carried forward for a second year, which would take us up to the National Assembly for Wales elections in 2016. The Electoral Commission makes specific reference to those with postal or proxy votes and the possibility of adverse impacts on participation after the introduction of IER. It will be a tragedy if, owing to administrative changes, electors in Wales find themselves unable to vote in their national elections. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister outlines how he will prevent that nightmare scenario.
	Clause 14 repeals section 16 of the Representation of the People Act 1985, which is on holding community council elections in Wales. Will the Minister confirm the process by which that decision was reached in respect of Wales, and whether the power to determine election dates for such elections lies with the UK Government or the Welsh Government?
	I conclude by repeating my key argument. The main aim of electoral registration is to ensure the completion and accuracy of the register. With so much change taking place in electoral administration as a result of the 2011 Act, I am concerned that we might inadvertently end up disfranchising electors and skewing the electoral system.

Oliver Colvile: I have been involved in this issue for the past 30 years, having trained to be a Conservative party agent in Wanstead and Woodford, which was next door to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing). That was a most interesting
	time. If the gentlemen who trained me were alive today, he would be somewhat horrified that I am involved in the debate, because he had been Winston Churchill’s agent for the last year of his parliamentary career.
	It is interesting to be involved in this debate with the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who was in the Chamber recently, for the simple reason that, for 10 years, I was the Tory party agent in that constituency, where I worked for Angela Rumbold, who was a very distinguished politician—she was not only an Education Minister but a Home Office Minister.
	I am keen to support the Bill because it is about ensuring that individuals take responsibility for their own lives and decide whether or not they want to be on the electoral register. We must do everything we can to encourage those people to ensure that they are registered. My hon. Friend the Minister has included a number of measures in the Bill that will help in that respect.
	Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is—surprise, surprise—the home of the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, 3 Commando Brigade and 29 Commando. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) mentioned the university in his city. Plymouth is also a university city; it has the third largest university in the country. It is also a dispersal centre for asylum seekers.
	I am curious as to why Labour Members have been critical of the individual registration measures in the Bill, because the previous Labour Government decided that it was no longer possible for the commanding officers at 29 Commando, the Royal Navy base or Stonehouse barracks to hand over a list of people serving in their units. The then Government decided that everyone had to make a service declaration, and that has had a devastating effect on the number of service personnel registering. We must do everything possible to encourage them. It would be unfortunate were we to say that service personnel were lesser people who did not need the opportunity to register and vote. It is vital that electoral registration officers in Plymouth and other garrison towns should be forced to hold registration surgeries, speak to the commanding officers and ensure that those people register.
	The story is similar for universities. Whenever I go knocking on doors in my constituency, I find that the previous occupants—students who gave up a year or two before—have moved on and that the new occupants have not registered. Many houses in my constituency are multi-occupancy. We need to address that issue. Electoral registration officers should also have stands at freshers’ fairs to ensure that people are registered.
	As mentioned, there is also an issue with bad registration. Some people who should not be here are on the electoral register. That is a key issue. It would be helpful were the Government willing to share information on asylum seekers with local authorities to ensure that those people are not included on the register. The risk is that they get lost in the whole thing. As hon. Members might know, candidates can ask the police to ask two questions of any voter. The first is: are they the person on the electoral register? The second is: are they the person residing at this address? I think there should be a third question: are they qualified to vote? It is important that we crack down on people voting in this country who are not entitled to do so.

Sheila Gilmore: I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) explain why Sunderland nearly always gets its count done first, whereas in Edinburgh we tend to be propping our eyelids open at 5 am, waiting for our results. It is about having the resources—in that case, the resources to get the count done, but in this case the resources to get registration done and so on. Those resources will be important when we implement the proposal.
	Unlike a couple of my hon. Friends, I am not saying that individual voter registration should not be happening, and, to be fair, that is not Labour’s position either. After all, Labour introduced legislation on this in the previous Parliament. We are asking, however, why it is necessary, in effect, to re-legislate. There was already a proposal and timetable for individual voter registration. Having heard the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), my colleague on the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, I have to ask why she has apparently changed her mind about the timetable. When the original legislation was going through, she supported that timetable and said how important it was that it be done carefully and step by step. She now expresses her concern, however, that a further two years have elapsed to get to this point. That was partly because her Government have chosen to re-legislate. If the original timetable had been adhered to, we would have been making the step-by-step progress she appeared to think would be good.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to answer her question. I have not changed my mind. During the last Parliament, I said that it was equally important to ensure that we improved the accuracy and the comprehensiveness of the register, but that we wished to do it more quickly than the then Government—[ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) is shaking her head, but I know what I said. I said that those provisions could be brought in more quickly, if it was done carefully and in a measured way, and I have always adhered to that view, because that would bring benefits to the voting people of this country.

Sheila Gilmore: I thank the hon. Lady for clarifying the position, although I still think, given the comments that she made previously, that she had been prepared to support the previous timetable.
	The process of pre-legislative scrutiny has been helpful, and the Government have clearly listened to the issues that were raised by the Select Committee, the Electoral Commission and others. That has been an important part of the process. It is an important part of the process for any legislation, and the Select Committee takes it very seriously. We make this comment frequently, and we made it quite vociferously when the opportunity was not given to scrutinise some of the early constitutional legislation in this Parliament. I believe that my fellow Select Committee members agree that that was detrimental to that legislation. The process has been valuable in this case. Even if some of the issues remain unresolved, we nevertheless got a response to the process. I hope that we will see much more of this kind of scrutiny for other legislation. The more debate, discussion and detailed scrutiny we have, the better. That kind of scrutiny is not
	always possible in Committee, whether on the Floor of the House or upstairs, as time is often limited. The Select Committee process has therefore been helpful.
	We all go out and about, and we know just how variable registration can be. That is one of my major concerns about the Bill. When I walk down a street of bungalows and villas in my constituency, I can be sure that I will knock on every door in that street, because all the people living there are on the electoral register. Equally, in other parts of the constituency, the number of registered households can be as low as two or three of the 10 or 12 on a stair in a tenement. Edinburgh is a city of tenements. There are modern flats and also traditional tenements, and many people living in them are not registered.
	Perhaps I misunderstood, but the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) seemed to suggest that the fall in the numbers of people registered during the past year was somehow to be placed at the door of the previous Government because they wanted registration to fall. What has actually happened is a substantial change in certain types of housing tenure.
	In Edinburgh, the proportion of people living in the private sector was between 6% and 7% in the late 1990s, but it is now 20%-plus and, in some areas, between 30% and 40%. That is important, because the time spent by people living in that form of tenure is shorter. Most private lets are shorter; people have to move on. In that situation, perhaps they do not form the same commitment to their community, and sometimes they have no sooner registered themselves than they are moving on. Not all the tenements have lifts, especially the old-style ones. I think that the highest such building in my constituency is five storeys high—or six, if we are using the British naming of floors. Having puffed my way up to the top, I often find that the people who were registered as living there have moved on, and that the new tenants have not yet registered. It is a particular issue in certain areas.
	It is important that the additional money promised by the Government is spent on the process of ensuring that registration happens properly. Even the data matching will be quite differential. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central touched on that, explaining that in some areas the data-matching pilots had shown only a 55% match—not the two thirds that the Government have mentioned.
	Why is that important for the size of the register? If the aim is to move people over as a result of data matching—that was not its original purpose, although I accept that it has considerable benefit, helping to ensure that people do not find themselves off the register—areas such as Edinburgh, which has many varied styles of description for tenement flats, help to explain why data-matching will not work. For example, the way in which flats are referred to within tenements is often quite variable. Some flats are referred to in some records as “stair 9/1, stair 9/2, stair 9/3” and so forth, whereas they are called something quite different in other registers for the same address—perhaps strange things like “1F1, 1F2, 2F2” or something rather peculiar like “PF1”, which puzzled me for a long time, as I thought it might refer to a platform, but it refers, in fact, to the ground floor.

Gavin Shuker: It strikes me that my hon. Friend is advancing the point that individual electoral registration officers and returning officers are well placed to understand
	their local communities, if given the appropriate level of resources for the challenging set of circumstances in which they have to do their job.

Sheila Gilmore: That is exactly my point. It is not just about the levels of population within an area, as variability is also important. Far more work will have to be done in areas with such difficulties, as the data matching will simply not happen in the circumstances I was describing. It is not because people do not exist or are in any way phantoms on the register, but simply because there are two sets of data identifying the same property in a very different way. That difficulty will be thrown up in the process. In those circumstances, certain areas will require more resources to ensure that people are registered.
	The decline in registration is worrying, and it is worrying that in some parts of our communities so few people are taking even the first step towards registration to vote. Being registered to vote is, of course, no guarantee that people will vote, but if they are not registered, they certainly cannot vote.
	Finally, I would like to hear more from the Minister about the extent to which the Government want to encourage somewhat more innovative ways of getting people to register—not just through the canvass and other traditional ways. Would it be possible, as happens in some countries and as some commentators have suggested, to offer people the opportunity to register when they are involved in other transactions with the state? If, for example, people were applying for a driving licence—that is particularly appropriate for young people—could they not be offered the opportunity to register? We cannot make them register, but that would provide the opportunity to do so.
	Perhaps even more valuable for the future, would it not be possible, given all the systems we have, to allow people both to register and to vote at the same time? Most people are of course most interested in voting when an election campaign is going on. We have all encountered people suddenly realising that they are not able to vote at the point when they want to do so. Allowing people to register and to vote at the same time might be difficult, but it certainly happens in many states in America. I urge the Government to look at as many different ways of getting people to register as possible.

Nick de Bois: I apologise to the House for having been absent for some 90 minutes. I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr Speaker.
	I entirely support the direction and aims of the Bill, but as the Minister will know from some of our earlier conversations, I want to press him on one or two matters and ask him for his thoughts. I should like him perhaps to go a little bit further.
	Let us start from the premise that in many boroughs and districts throughout the country it is harder to obtain a library card than to exercise one’s franchise, which is a state of affairs that has left us open to the possibility of fraudulent use of that franchise by people who are on the electoral register when they are not entitled to be. Indeed, people are sometimes encouraged to act in that way. A council employee may simply knock on people’s doors between certain months of the year and take their details without requiring them to prove their qualification or identification.

Lee Scott: A major problem at present is that the previous occupants of the home may be on the electoral register along with the current occupants—and, if they themselves have moved again, a third set of occupants. That problem has never been dealt with, but the Bill will remedy it.

Nick de Bois: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has anticipated a point that I shall be making later if time permits.
	There has been a suggestion that there is limited evidence of fraud, and some Opposition Members have suggested that there is no such evidence. I remind the House that last year I took a random sample of 100 people who had been to my constituency seeking leave to remain, and who had absolutely no right to vote in this country. Of those people, 21 were on the electoral roll. I repeated the exercise this year, and it produced a similar result.

Oliver Colvile: Might not this be one of the reasons: a piece of paper comes through the door, it looks official and people feel that they should reply? They think that they are being incredibly good and behaving themselves, but in reality they are filling in a form when they should not be doing so in the first place.

Nick de Bois: My hon. Friend has far more experience of these matters than I have. I believe that there are a multitude of reasons, including that one. I do not believe that it is all about fraudulent intent, but it can lead to the exercise of a franchise by someone who has absolutely no right to do so. It is clear—and it has been raised—that some people deliberately seek to get on to the electoral register when they have no right to do so, perhaps to improve their chances of obtaining credit. The fact is, however, that the door is open for them to do so, and we must slam it shut.

Ian Swales: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Does he recognise an experience that I had recently? I asked a female voter whether I could speak to the other two females in the house, only to be told that they were aged six and four.

Nick de Bois: I have not had such an experience myself. I am shocked to hear of the hon. Gentleman’s experience, but not surprised. I am grateful to him for drawing it to my attention.
	Our system currently depends on trust, and unsurprisingly that trust can and will be broken. The proposals for the use of national insurance numbers and individual registration are therefore a massive step forward, and I hope that they will be implemented as soon as possible. I shall deal shortly with the question of timing, but I should like first to raise four points with the Minister. I would be grateful if he responded to them, or at least considered them and then responded at some future date.
	First, the co-ordinated online record of electors presents the possibility that people can move and remain on a multitude of registers. As we have heard, the population is increasingly transient, so there will be ever more such instances. I am not a great fan of the “database state”, but I would like to know how the Minister proposes do deal with this problem, because without a record, there will be no central mechanism.
	Under the current electoral system, signing up for a postal vote, and therefore being able to exercise the vote without going to the polling station, is easier, and there is potential for the use of false names. There will be some improvement in that regard, but we must consider the timetabling of the Bill, and the fact that many key elements, such as individual registration, will not be put in place until 2014, given the two years it will take for individuals to drop off the register. Therefore, the 2014 general election will be fought using fundamentally the same register as before, but with an increased possibility that it will not be as clean a register as we would like. I fail to understand why we are not trying to focus on the 2015 election. I realise that Ministers have been criticised for introducing these measures too swiftly, but I am trying to understand what trade-off has been agreed so that we are not seeking to put the changes in place for the next general election.
	Like many other Members, I welcome the extension of the election period to 25 days. However, if I have read the proposals correctly, it will be possible to apply for a postal vote up to six days before the general election. Does that not present some demanding challenges for electoral returning officers—I am happy to be able to say that we in Enfield have one of the best—in verifying those records, and if there were some organised fraud in postal voting, would that not present an even tougher challenge?
	The Bill’s provisions deal with fraudulent entries on the electoral register, but very little is being done to deal with the growing problem of personation—the act of turning up at the polling station and using someone else’s details to get a ballot paper. We have already heard that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) could appear as Elvis Presley. That scenario was entertainingly described by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson). The reality is that, however implausible that might be, it is highly possible if the name “Elvis Presley” is on the register.
	I therefore ask the Minister to expand further on the reasons for not requiring some form of voter identification at the polling station. Predictably, Opposition Members said the answer to the problem was to introduce their identity card scheme. As we know, that is not necessary, as illustrated in Northern Ireland, where perfectly acceptable methods of identification are available.
	I was delighted that the chair of the Electoral Commission, Jenny Watson, who has been calling for voter identification at polling stations since 2010, has urged for such a change in the law to be considered, to
	“help us all be sure our voting system is safe.”
	I am confused as to why the Government will not pursue this matter further. I understand that one objection might be that such a change is a step change too far, and may threaten voter turnout. However, within two years of its being introduced in Northern Ireland, the turnout was up to 62.9%, which was slightly higher than the average for a UK general election. I ask the Minister to share his thoughts with us.
	Let me be clear, however, that I consider this Bill to be long overdue and extremely welcome. It has my full support, but I will be very grateful if I am able to offer it even greater support, with consideration being given to some of these proposed changes, so we can have full confidence in the register of voters.

Gavin Shuker: I am extremely grateful for being given the opportunity to speak in this debate. On Second Reading, we have the opportunity to debate the principle behind the Bill, and Opposition Front Benchers were right to point out that although we can support the underlying principle, there are areas that give cause for concern, and I am sure those will determine how we divide the House this evening.
	Some of the comments made today in discussing the principle behind the Bill have concerned me. We have thrown around terms such as “the integrity of the register” as though that were a one-sided issue. The root of integrity is the absence of flaws. I completely support the efforts we made when in government to introduce individual voter registration, and which we have continued to support under the current Administration. However, my concern is that a register that excludes people who otherwise may wish to vote and who are perfectly entitled to do so, and that seeks to reduce the number of voters from certain key groups—those who are less likely to be able to register in this way—is fundamentally flawed. Many Opposition Members and, if we are being honest, Members across the House, would identify those key groups as young people, people from ethnic minority and poorer backgrounds, and those who live in inner cities.
	Two issues have come to light during the debate that will govern how we will debate the Bill as it proceeds through Parliament. The first is the number of anecdotal examples of alleged voter fraud, and of convictions for such fraud. I detected an underlying tone in many Members’ contributions; it suggested that, even where convictions were not secured, the fact that questions were raised was evidence of a problem that must be solved. However, we should be better than that, especially when the underlying assumption about the background of the people involved in such activity—it is an assumption made by a number of Members during today’s debate—relates to their ethnicity, religion or faith. If we want to make assertions based on anecdotal evidence, we should be extremely careful about the type of groups we characterise in that way. The onus of proof is clearly on us, as Members.
	My second concern is the underlying assumption, which we heard from Government Members, that if people cannot complete a more complex and demanding process in order to register and are unable to return the form—the issue that is at the heart of the Bill—they should, quite rightly, lose their right to vote. No one should lose their right to vote. There are questions to be asked about what the most efficient process is to ensure the integrity of the register. As I said at the start of my speech, if we truly want a register with integrity, we need to consider not just those who should not be on the register, but those who are not on it. There is this idea that we have an undeserving group of people. The example was rightly given—perhaps in jest, but there is some truth in it—of younger voters, such as students. It may surprise Members to hear that, not so long ago, I was a student. Even though I am a disciplined, efficient and “together” Member of Parliament now—[ Interruption. ] Thank you. I think Hansard may record that as “interruption”. However, there were perhaps times when a form or essay sat on my desk that I fully intended to hand in, but my approach was not as
	efficient as the one I would adopt now that I am in my fourth decade. It is important not to put hurdles in the way before we have seen the evidence on the effects; only then should we undergo the transition to a whole new process.

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate speech, as well as a self-congratulatory one. He is congratulatory about himself, but he is dismissive of the qualities of our young people. One of the transitions that they have to make is from childhood to adulthood. Students in this country are perfectly capable of recognising their duty and the requirements to register to vote. The suggestion that they or people in ethnic minorities somehow have a likelihood of being incapable of doing that is one that I find offensive to them, and I ask him to retract any such suggestion.

Gavin Shuker: I think that the hon. Gentleman has entirely misread my comments, and I wonder whether he has chosen to do so. About one in four young people under 24 vote, whereas about three quarters of people over 60 do so, and that should not be dismissed.

Eleanor Laing: We have debated this matter for the past five hours, but does the hon. Gentleman not accept that if a person cannot exercise the personal responsibility of filling in a simple form online in order to register to vote, it is upon their own head that they lose their right to vote?

Gavin Shuker: The hon. Lady has moderated her language since she made her speech earlier, in which she clearly said that those people did not “deserve” to vote. She can look at Hansard to see that. I appreciate that she has moved her position, but her substantive point remains that there are those people who deserve to vote and those who do not. I, for one, do not want to see a system where we start talking about the electorate in that way.

Graham Stuart: They won’t be the electorate.

Gavin Shuker: The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that they will not be the electorate then, but in this place we should be better than that.
	When we consider foreign policy, for example, we often examine how we set a timetable. There are two ways of setting a timetable for change. The first is by way of a conditions-based response, where we say that there are certain milestones to be hit—certain points at which we consider that the integrity of the process has been governed and understood by all, and the progress that has been made has been secured. The other route is by way of a purely date-led timetable. In the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, the previous Government set out a position where two parallel processes would happen at the same time: the existing register would continue in the way that it had, while we looked at and tried to understand how individual electoral registration affected the details of those people on the register. That strikes me as a wholly appropriate approach, and many Government Members, as they are now, supported those moves. Why for the sake of a year’s change or difference are we now going to cause ourselves trouble and store it up for the future?
	We have heard a lot from the Minister about the data-matching trials, which are obviously important in order for us to see whether this shift has a measurable and discernible effect on how the register is produced. He has placed details in the Library today, and I am looking forward to seeing them. However, he said that he anticipates that only two thirds of the people currently on the register will be moved across.

Sadiq Khan: At best.

Gavin Shuker: At best. The key issue is that we will not know, even from the pilots, whether that is an appropriate level until early 2013, by which point this legislation will have gone from this place. We will not be able to pull back from the brink if demonstrably lower levels of data matching are shown. The Minister was clear about the onus put on those trials in the first place; it was a key reason why this was an appropriate route to go down. In answer to my intervention, he said that he hoped the number on the electoral register will not decrease, and will instead increase, as a result of these changes. What safeguards are in place if the data-matching trials come back not with a figure of 66% or 55%, which is the sort of figure others have spoken about, but a significantly lower one? Answer comes there none.
	Secondly, on the 2015 review of boundaries for the 2020 elections, to which this process is integral, we have very little in the way of answers about how the register will change constituency boundaries, which have already been changed to a great extent. I draw the House’s attention to the quotes from the Electoral Reform Society, which said:
	“A substantial fall off in registered voters, weighted towards urban areas, would require the Boundary Commission to reduce the number of inner city seats. This will create thousands of “invisible” citizens who will not be accounted for or considered in many key decisions that affect their lives”.
	I believe that that is the situation we are in now, and it might well extend further. That does a disservice to many of the groups that I mentioned.
	Finally, I want to draw attention to the issue of young people. Students who are registered in their halls of residence are empowered to vote at a time of significant change and transition in their lives. I hope that they will not be disfranchised, because their voices must be heard if we are to maintain the credibility of the process and draw in new voters, too.

Angela Smith: We have enjoyed an excellent debate, with contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). My right hon. and hon. Friends all drew attention to the risks of disfranchisement carried in the Bill and talked in detail about the risks to those parts of the population that are perhaps more transient.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield South East, for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and for Edinburgh East also stressed the importance of the pilots on data matching and the need to evaluate their effectiveness before moving ahead to full individual registration. The provisions on individual registration concern us. As the Electoral Commission put it:
	“It requires careful planning and implementation and needs to be done in a way that puts the voter first.”
	That is crucial because voter registration is at the heart of our democracy.
	It is always worth reiterating that democracy is deeply embedded in our society and culture. It has developed slowly over the centuries and was, of course, a rallying cry in the English civil war and in the ongoing struggle waged by movements such as the Chartists, the Reform League and the Suffragettes. Many died for the cause, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras. We should therefore not take risks with our hard-earned rights and should do everything we can to strengthen our most precious asset, our democracy. An accurate and complete electoral register is fundamental to achieving that, but we must be cautious and remember the words of the 18th century poet, Alexander Pope, who said:
	“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread”.
	We clearly need to tread carefully, and that is why Labour, when we were in government, legislated for a phased approach to the introduction of individual registration.
	Let us be clear that there is no backsliding from the Opposition on the overall principle. We are of the view that we are one of the few countries in the world to practise registration on a household basis and the system has outlived its usefulness, but our legislation was based on important safeguards that insisted that the new system should be phased in and that that should be combined with an annual monitoring of progress by the Electoral Commission and a final assessment in 2014 by the commission of whether to move to a fully fledged individual registration system at that point. The key question is why the coalition Government decided to accelerate the process and demote the role of the commission in assessing progress. When my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East asked that question, the Minister replied from a sedentary position that it was because it was too slow.
	Whatever the reasons are, the Opposition are saddened and mystified by how the Deputy Prime Minister and the coalition Government have approached the issue. First, the White Paper set out measures which, if they had been retained, would have seriously threatened registration levels. We saw in the White Paper the proposed opt-out from the process, and there was a proposal that there should be no civil penalty for failing or refusing to register, alongside a proposal that there should be no annual canvass in 2014. That these ideas have all been abandoned, thanks to sustained and rigorous campaigning by Labour MPs and democrats everywhere, is at least a signal that the party which brought in the Reform Act 1867 has not entirely lost its democratic roots.
	However, the Bill is still far from perfect and it is clear that the Government are not listening to the legitimate concerns of democrats everywhere. Specifically, although the Government have conceded the use of carry-over
	data for the register for the general election in 2015, this will not be allowed for the boundary review due to start in December that year. This leads to the possibility of a boundary change taking place in the context of wide-scale disfranchisement, particularly in intensely urban areas with higher levels of voter turbulence. The Government must listen to the concerns expressed about this by the Electoral Reform Society and by academics such as Dr Stuart Wilks-Heeg.
	Secondly, the role of the Electoral Commission in assessing progress in implementation of the new system should be restored. It is critical to the independence of our democratic process that this should be so. Moreover, we believe that both the secondary legislation and the implementation plan should be published before the House considers the detail of the Bill, so that we have the most rigorous debate possible on how individual registration should move forward.
	We need to see, too, a proper commitment to ring-fencing the funding set aside by Government for the implementation of the legislation. At a time of swingeing cuts to local government funding, we need safeguards to ensure properly resourced approaches to electoral registration, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East. Alongside this we need to see the Government row back from their intention not to carry forward to the 2015 general election the postal and proxy votes held by many currently on the register who fail to register individually in time for that election. The comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central about the importance of making it easier, not harder, for people to cast their votes were relevant in this context. Furthermore, we need the Government to agree to drop the power to cancel annual canvasses. These will remain a critical tool in the constant drive that is necessary to maximize registration of the eligible voting population.
	These concerns are not just Labour concerns. They have been raised by a wide range of organisations, including the Electoral Reform Society, and by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, to whose work I pay tribute. It is in sadness more than in anger that the Opposition feel it necessary to vote against Second Reading, because we remain unconvinced that the coalition Government’s unpicking of the Labour legislation is anything other than a partisan attempt to manipulate the concept of individual voter registration on what one can only assume are political grounds. But we will work at representing our demands in Committee and on Report, and hope that the Government will see sense and modify the Bill accordingly, thereby re-establishing the consensual approach to this topic, which we believe is important if our electoral system is to retain its credibility and its integrity.
	The great electoral reforms of the past were steered through Parliament by names that stand tall in the annals of our democratic history: Lord Grey, Benjamin Disraeli, William Gladstone and Lloyd George. We remember, too, Stanley Baldwin, Clem Attlee and Harold Wilson, who all in their own way strengthened the franchise and its integrity, and in so doing strengthened our democracy.
	I put it to the House that the Deputy Prime Minister, even at this late stage, should consider whether he wants to be remembered as the politician who upheld the principles of our democracy or the one who disowned
	and damaged the radical legacy of our political forefathers for the sake of a mean political advantage in the 2015 boundary review. The choice is his: he can either walk with the giants or adopt the stance of a democratic pygmy. We on the Opposition Benches have made our choice and will vote against Second Reading.

David Heath: Oh deary, deary me! It is a rare privilege for the Minister responsible for political and constitutional reform and me to present a Bill that seems to have the wholehearted support of all colleagues on the Government Benches, and I want to put that on the record. I think that is because the reform is based on the important principle that the electoral register should include all those who are eligible to vote and none of those who are ineligible to vote.
	It is clear that there are risks inherent in our current system. Over the years I have often taken part in international electoral monitoring missions, both in eastern Europe and in central Asia, and occasionally I have led such missions. It always seemed an embarrassment that I could not defend the integrity of our electoral system in the way I would demand of the systems in other countries. I must say, in passing, to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), who said that presiding officers should have more powers, that in at least one polling station I visited the presiding officer had an AK47 on the desk in front of him, but I think that is something we would draw back from.
	I had thought that across the House we shared the principle that individual voter registration was necessary and desirable. I know that there are some refuseniks. I know that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for example, will never believe that individual voter registration is the right course. Incidentally, I can give her at least one bit of reassurance. She asked if she could be on the Committee. It will be a Committee of the whole House, so I think she may sneak in. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) does not want to see any change at all, and he has colleagues who share that view.

Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the Bill is the subject of a pilot whereby Members can table explanatory statements for any amendments or new clauses that they wish to bring forward?

David Heath: Indeed I will, as the Parliamentary Secretary did when he moved the motion earlier. I think that is an important innovation.
	Many colleagues on the Government Benches stressed the dangers of electoral fraud, which are clearly there. We heard reminders of that from the hon. Members for Peterborough, for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell), for Witham (Priti Patel) and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and, by intervention, from my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle). I simply cannot understand the point made by the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who suggested that there was some defect in the process of bringing forward the Bill, because I cannot remember a single
	Bill that has gone through so many processes of pre-legislative scrutiny. It is actually held up as an exemplar of good process, so I am sad that she does not recognise that.
	I do not have time to go through all the details of the contributions from hon. Members, but I will refer to a few. I thought that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) made a reasoned and well-argued case. He does know a little about this because he has supported the principle for many years, as he said. He read out the report from eight years ago.

Clive Betts: In raising that issue, I asked what the Government would do if the Bill, when an Act, leads to a substantial fall in registration.

David Heath: We are confident that it will not do so—[ Interruption. ] But let me say that I can point to the fact that we had a substantial fall in registration during the period of the previous Government, so I ask myself, “What did that Government do about the disgrace of 3 million people falling off the register?” The answer is nothing. We are putting forward concrete measures to ensure that we not only have a register with integrity, but recruit as many additional people as possible to it, and online registration, for example, will be a major boost to young people’s registration, because it will make the process easier for them.
	As I have said, I will have to rush through my response to several contributions. I have to disappoint the hon. Member for Pendle in one respect, because we do not intend to remove what he described as postal votes on demand. A great many people benefit from postal votes, and we need to maintain that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson) talked about second home owners and will know the distinction between someone who owns a second home and someone who is resident in more than one home. His local councils have been taking action on that, and, as I know he will be glad to hear, we are still considering the matter of the edited register.
	The hon. Member for Epping Forest raised the question of queuing, but I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has already answered that point, when he mentioned the changes in administration locally which ought to cure that problem.
	I was very taken by the speech from the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). She made a number of very important points about how the system will work, and we will carefully consider them, but may I give her one piece of reassurance? She mentioned the electoral arrangements in her own city of Sunderland, which are very good, and one reason why is Mr Dave Smith, the city council’s chief executive, who is on the programme board, so we will benefit directly from his advice.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) welcomed these changes, and may I reassure him again on the important point about the carry-over of postal votes? If people’s details do not change, the carry-over will happen automatically and we will not lose them from the register. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) asked again about
	publishing the secondary legislation during the progress of the Bill, and I reassure him again that we will do so—unlike our predecessors, who did not do so with previous Bills. The hon. Member for Witham asked for an assurance, which I can give her. The Government will not use this Bill to amend prisoner voting rights, whatever may be said in the courts.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) was for the principle of the Bill and asked how it will affect European parliamentary election preparations. The simple answer is that it will improve the accuracy of the register by moving the canvass date, and I think that that will be helpful. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) mentioned the service personnel issue, which is a very important principle, and we need to consider a mechanism to facilitate registration and registration updates as part of the arrivals process for personnel at new postings.
	I will not be able to answer all the points that have been made, but I felt that the contribution of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) was very sad indeed because he was desperately casting about for a reason to oppose a Bill that he supports in principle, and for some reason to say that, despite the Government having made concessions in a range of areas where we have listened to what people have said, it was still not enough. He was desperate to find good reasons to vote against the Bill, but he did not persuade me, I doubt if he has persuaded the House, and I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 223, Noes 283.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2)), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 283, Noes 219.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
	Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and Third Reading
	2. Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in three days.
	3. The proceedings shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.
	4. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	TABLE
	
		
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 First and second days  
			 Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clauses 3 and 4, Clauses 6 to 9, Clause 5, Schedules 3 and 5. The moment of interruption on the second day. 
			 Third day  
			 Clauses 10 to 12, Schedule 4, new Clauses relating to Part 1, new Schedules relating to Part 1, Clauses 13 to 21, remaining new Clauses, remaining new Schedules, Clauses 22 to 26, remaining proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration. Two hours before the moment of interruption on the third day. 
			 Proceedings on Third Reading. The moment of interruption on the third day. 
		
	
	5. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee, to any proceedings on consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	6. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—( Mr Heath .)
	Question agreed  to .

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation  signified .
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)( a )),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
	(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act, and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided,
	(2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of that Fund, and
	(3) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Mr Heath.)
	Question agreed  to .

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Criminal Law

That the draft Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 27 March, in the previous Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mr Heath.)
	Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

EU Criminal Justice and Detention

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11658/11, relating to the European Commission’s Green Paper on the application of EU criminal justice legislation in the field of detention; and supports the conclusions of the Government’s response to the Green Paper, including the recommendation that the European Commission should focus on the development and extension of best practice amongst Member States before making any new legislative proposals in this area.—(Mr McLoughlin.)
	Question agreed to.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
	That—
	(1) the matter of the Government’s Legislative programme as outlined in the Queen’s Speech and the Budget Statement as they relate to Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;
	(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 20 June at 9.30 am and 2.00 pm to consider–
	(a) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), except that questions shall be addressed to, and answered by, Ministers in Her Majesty’s Treasury, until 9.45 am;
	(b) questions tabled in accordance with Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), until 10.00 am;
	(c) a Ministerial statement by the Secretary of State for Wales, proceeded with under Standing Order No. 105 (Welsh Grand Committee (ministerial statements));
	(d) the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and
	(3) the Chair shall interrupt proceedings at the afternoon sitting not later than two hours after their commencement at that sitting.—(Bill  Wiggin .)

PEITTIONS

VAT on Static Caravans

Therese Coffey: I present a petition on behalf of Suffolk Coastal residents. People have also sent me letters on this matter.
	The petition states that
	levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs
	in the UK holiday industry, including on caravan parks, and for caravan manufacturing and its suppliers,
	and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy will
	reduce investment in these businesses and
	lose revenue for the Government.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[ The Petition of Residents of Suffolk Coastal,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs in caravan manufacturing, from their suppliers, and in the wider UK holiday industry; and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy would lose revenue for the Government.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P001059]

Anne McIntosh: I, too, wish to present a petition on behalf of residents in Thirsk and Malton in similar terms to the aforementioned petition. In addition to the petition, I have received a vast number of letters. Normally, when such a radical tax change is proposed, one year is allowed from the date of its proposed introduction before its coming into force, if at all.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Thirsk and Malton,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that levying VAT on static holiday caravans would cost thousands of jobs in caravan manufacturing, from their suppliers, and in the wider UK holiday industry; and notes that the Petitioners believe that such a levy would lose revenue for the Government.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reverse its decision to levy VAT on static caravans.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001094]

YACHT AND BOAT DELIVERY COMPANIES (SAFETY REGULATIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Bill Wiggin.)

Geoffrey Cox: The reason for my seeking to secure this Adjournment debate is the death of five men in circumstances that will, I hope, attract the indignation of every right-thinking man and woman listening to my narrative.
	The sea conditions in the north-west Pacific in the months of November and December are notoriously dangerous. The navigational directions of the Admiralty speak of frequent gales, huge seas and swells rising to over 4 metres. These mountainous and confused seas are raised by violent winds and driven by tropical storms and hurricanes. Into the teeth of those conditions sailed the fragile, 40-feet catamaran, the Cat Shot. She was skippered by a constituent of mine, John Anstess, a man born in Plymouth, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), whose family reside in the village of Beer Alston in west Devon. He was an experienced skipper and a decent family man. He had set sail in August 2006, en route to Seattle on the north-west coast of the United States of America.
	The Cat Shot had crossed the south Atlantic and, after making several stops and negotiating the Panama canal, put in to Puerto Vallarta in Mexico to shelter from Hurricane Sergio. Hurricane Sergio weakened and died off on 18 November and, on 24 November, the Cat Shot arrived at San Diego. There, the crew refused to continue because they thought that it would be unsafe to do so at that time of year in that vessel. On 30 November, the Cat Shot arrived in Los Angeles, where she took on a replacement crew member, Richard Beckman. On 7 December, she made San Francisco, where she took on another crew member, Dave Rodman. On 8 December, she departed from San Francisco for the final run to Seattle. She was skippered, as I have said, by John Anstess.
	That was the last time those three men were seen alive. When the catamaran was recovered, the hull door was found open and a line was attached to the propeller bracket. She had capsized. The crew had clearly left the vessel after that happened. The log was recovered. The final entry had been made at 03:00 hours on 11 December 2006—it had been the skipper’s practice to make entries roughly every three hours—from which the US coastguard concluded that the vessel had foundered off the coast of Oregon between 03:00 and 06:00 hours on that day. The log recorded very heavy weather conditions and confused seas. The vessel had run before the wind, bare poled, with no sails and with sea anchors deployed. A storm had developed in the area at the time, and the Admiralty court judge who inquired into the matter stated that it was
	“most probable that size and steepness of a combination of waves and swell was sufficient to overturn her.”
	How had the vessel come to be in that place at that time? John Anstess had been engaged by a company called Reliance Yacht Management, or Reliance Yacht Deliveries Ltd, as a delivery skipper. It is the conduct of that company and its principal director, Mr Nicholas
	Irving, that is and should be under scrutiny by my hon. Friend the Minister, as well as the important questions of public policy that this case raises.
	The United States coastguard conducted an inquiry, which concluded that
	“the master felt pressure from his employers to deliver the yacht against safety standards (no survival suits, radar, heating, proper communications gear, proper life boat for ocean travel)...the master requested to travel a different route via Hawaii because he felt it would be safer and quicker and was denied permission by his employer who stated the owners would not allow it.”
	The judge in the Admiralty Court concluded:
	“The question is whether it was proper to navigate a vessel with the characteristics of this catamaran into a part of the world where she could or was likely to meet such bad weather conditions…In my judgment it could generally be regarded as intrinsically unsafe and therefore foolhardy to take a 40 foot…multi hull vessel across any piece of water when it was expected to meet hurricane or typhoon conditions…this is particularly true if it was possible to avoid such conditions”.
	The judge concluded in the High Court that Reliance should have taken steps to inquire what conditions would face the vessel. If not, it would have had no way of knowing whether it was sensible to commit the skipper and the crew to the delivery of a boat within that time scale.
	The judge concluded that Irving had done nothing to check the weather to be expected in the north Pacific at that time of year or to carry out elementary route planning, which is a prerequisite of the responsible operation of sailing vessels. Had he done so, he would have been bound to conclude that the voyage was unsafe. This was the view of the crew who left the boat at San Diego. It was the view of the local skippers. This view was conveyed to Reliance, but it was ignored. The only inference—I repeat, the only inference—is that Mr Irving and his company were more interested in their reputation for delivering boats on time than with the lives of their skippers and crew.
	When Mr Anstess urgently and repeatedly raised the sensible suggestion that he should take the Hawaii route because it would have avoided the area of bad weather and was a route that was more off wind than the coastal route and therefore much more appropriate for a catamaran, it was rejected by Irving with the words that the “client will go ballistic”. John Anstess had also e-mailed his sister on 25 November to say that he was getting no help from Reliance and had requested a change of route, but that Nick had laughed at him. Nick did not say, as a responsible operator would have, “Well, John, it is a matter for you; do what you think is best—you’re the captain on the spot.” He directed John Anstess to sea; he directed him to his death.
	When John Anstess suggested wintering in San Diego—of all the options, the most sensible—he was told: “John, you have definitely got a tired attitude. I still like you, John, but this trip you have definitely showed a different side to you.” The judge rightly concluded that this was a rejection. He found that there was no competent managerial system in place at Reliance that could evaluate the relevant dangers and make proper decisions. He agreed with the United States coastguard that John Anstess had been put under pressure to complete the voyage. He found Reliance negligent and the loss of the crew directly attributable to its conduct. He also found that when John Anstess had
	sent a message stating that the weather was not looking good—that there were strong south-easterlies gusting 30 to 40 knots for the next three or four days and a massive low system out over the Pacific—he was told by the company that its forecast shows “light winds” out to the south-west and south-east, and either way not from the north.
	Let us pause a moment and reflect upon the wickedness of such an act. The judge concluded there had been no such weather forecast, and that it had been part of Reliance’s approach to put pressure on John Anstess to complete the delivery. He had gone ahead only against his own best judgment, after the company had ignored and overridden his warning and advice. The judge found that John Anstess had probably survived the capsize and had rigged the line around the propeller, no doubt in an attempt to remain attached to the capsized vessel in the swelling seas. So he ordered that Mr Irving and his company should pay £3,000 to his relatives and estate, and should pay the remainder of the $7,500 fee for which John had contracted to supply the boat. A note of a phone call from John Anstess was found at Reliance, saying that he was
	“on a boat already suffering stress damages. I am being pushed into taking the boat into even more extreme weather than I have encountered so far and nobody seems to care.”
	What has been the reaction of Mr Irving? Has he paid the paltry sum that Reliance was ordered to pay by the High Court? He has not. He has applied to dissolve his company, and with that dissolution to escape the judgment debt. He is in the habit of dissolving companies: he has dissolved no fewer than four so far.
	John Anstess is not the only skipper who has been lost at sea while delivering yachts for Reliance, and for Mr Irving. Although it beggars belief, just two months later Steve Hobley, another Devon man—from Newton Abbot—was sailing on the right, safe and prudent route from England to Miami when he was ordered to deviate and sail north of Bermuda to take a 38-feet catamaran to Annapolis in Maryland. He was told by Irving that if he failed to make the diversion, he would never work for the company again. The area is notorious for bad weather at that time of year, and the catamaran capsized. His two crew survived for 11 hours in the Atlantic on its upturned hull, but they watched Mr Hobley die of hypothermia and slip beneath the waves in the darkness.
	Alistair Crawford, a young and inexperienced skipper on his first trip, was sent to sea to deliver a yacht to the Caribbean. Irving had lied to the owners about Alistair Crawford’s qualifications, claiming on a falsified CV that he possessed thousands of miles of seagoing experience. Other yacht companies had warned their employees not to put to sea that night, but Alistair Crawford—just like John Anstess and Steve Hobley—was subjected to pressure to do so. The yacht foundered, losing its mast, in storm conditions and 60-knot winds in the Bay of Biscay. It was not equipped to deal with those conditions.
	What are the issues raised by this sad and tragic story? Not a single action has been taken by any authority in this country to bring to account Mr Irving and his company for that story of neglect, irresponsibility and reckless endangerment of the lives of human beings. The yacht was registered as a pleasure craft and did not have to meet the rigorous requirement for charter vessels,
	even though it was being taken by employed crew—many of them British citizens—from this country to the port of destination, for pay.
	And what of John Anstess? His Cat Shot was foreign-registered, and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency says that it is unable to act for that reason. My office has been in touch with the agency today, and it continues to adopt that stance. This is an outrage. Something must be done to bring the company to account. I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that I do not believe that enough consideration has been given to whether action can be taken. I do not accept that this matter is beyond the criminal jurisdiction of the courts of this country merely because the vessel flew a foreign flag. The instructions to go to sea that the judge found were negligent, the lies about the weather conditions, and the pressure put on the captain and the masters by Irving of Reliance were all carried out in this country. If they amount to a criminal wrong, there can be indictments in this country, even though the impact may have been felt 6,000 miles across the seas.
	The Maritime and Coastguard Agency must be asked to look at this issue again. It has signed a memorandum of understanding with other prosecution agencies—the Health and Safety Executive, the Crown Prosecution Service. My hon. Friend the Minister must prompt those agencies to look again at this matter. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 puts duties on employers—which is what the judge in the High Court found Reliance and Irving were—to ensure the safety of their employees. The instructions, the equipping of the vessel, the lack of navigational planning were all carried out in England, and, I submit, are therefore subject to the jurisdiction of our courts.
	However, even if I am wrong about that—even if all these agencies, through all their concerted efforts, cannot find a way of affording justice to the families of these five men who have died—there is still an important public policy question. How can we allow companies that hold in their hands the lives of hundreds of men every year—sending them to sea in fragile pleasure craft, apparently unregulated by any authority—to continue to do so if they demonstrate the degree of callousness and neglect that Irving and Reliance demonstrated in the story I have just related?
	It is time that the Government seized this nettle. We must have an urgent review to see whether it is possible to regulate the yacht delivery industry, at least by imposing basic standards of integrity and conduct upon it. As the judge in the Admiralty court found, the company had a responsibility to ensure that it was not committing the skipper to a time scale in this area of the world that no reasonable, sensible or prudent ship or yacht operator would agree to. What would happen in any other sphere? In a land-based case, the employer would be guilty of an offence under the 1974 Act for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of his employees.
	Watching tonight will be the families: John’s father, Jack Anstess, and his sister, Wendy, as well as Steve Hobley’s daughter and granddaughter, and the families of the crew who perished with John off the Oregon coast on 11 December 2006. My hon. Friend the Minister is a man of integrity, conscience and compassion, and it is essential that our Government render justice to them. They cry out for justice; the families expect justice.
	Only very rarely must one bring to the House a story of such tragedy and such outrageous conduct that has not already been policed or brought to account in the courts. In the last resort, it is this House that can render justice to those wronged and aggrieved families, and it is my hon. Friend who can commence that process. I am grateful for his agreeing to see the family with me in a few weeks’ time, but that will not be sufficient if we do not demonstrate that we are determined to ensure that all the families know that this Government and the regulatory authorities have done all they can to satisfy their plea, which I have articulated, for justice and for this man and his company to be brought to account.

Michael Penning: In the short time I have remaining, I will try as best I can to articulate my thoughts on the issue that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) has brought to the House’s attention today, and to me privately before this debate. It would be wrong of me not to say that my thoughts and prayers are with the families of those who were lost at sea. Going to sea has always been an enormously dangerous occupation—for anybody—and the bravery of our seafarers has been renowned for centuries.
	It is shocking for me to have to stand before this House with not one but both hands tied behind my back. I have questioned my officials at length about the powers that I or other Government agencies have to deal not only with this issue, but with the other serious crimes at sea that I have recently discussed with the International Maritime Organisation—the body with responsibility for such matters—so that we can achieve international recognition of the problems. I will return to that issue, if I can, in moment.
	I want to express my particular admiration for the sister of John Anstess, Mrs Wendy Wood, who has pursued her campaign for improvements in safety not just in order to bring to justice those involved in this case, but to protect other seafarers in similar situations who are delivering British yachts and other vessels around the world. We would all like what she is calling for to actually happen—particularly me, as the Minister with responsibility for such matters. However, the difficulty is that, as became clear in discussions with the outgoing and the new secretary-general of the IMO, we cannot act in isolation. The cases that my hon. and learned Friend referred to are on the other side of the Atlantic. We must make sure that we do not simply move this problem to France or Belgium, for instance, so that the same terrible situation occurs there.
	In saying that, it is very important that we get the facts right. As my hon. and learned Friend said, the yacht that John was employed to move was not registered in the United Kingdom, and the sad loss occurred outside our territorial waters. That restricts enormously the powers of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. As I have said to him, he has full access to the MCA at any time, and to any information he requires. He is a learned man and perhaps knows more about these matters than I do, but I can only go by the legal advice I am given. We have no powers in this regard. I was very
	surprised to discover, on looking at the documents, that even though the company in question was registered in the UK, the HSE has no powers. I wondered whether anything could be done under the new UK legislation on corporate manslaughter, or under reciprocal international agreements—we have seen a lot in the press about our reciprocal agreements with America—but it cannot.
	My hon. and learned Friend and I will work together with the families concerned, and if we can find a way to prosecute this issue through my Department, my agencies, my Secretary of State or through any other Government Department, we will do so. My fear is that we will not find a way, but we will try, and if we can act, we will. Should we not find suitable avenues, I intend to push within government to shut this down for future situations, which is what John’s sister so desperately wants.
	We are signed up to the international convention for the safety of life at sea—or the SOLAS convention—and so are all the red ensigns in the Crown protectorate. I know that my hon. and learned Friend knows the Cayman Islands well, and it flies my flag—the buck stops with me in respect of the red ensign, no matter where it flies in the world. So we are all party to this. The regulations are quite explicit. They put the responsibility for all navigational decisions in the hands of the master or skipper of the vessel. The regulations also make it an offence for anyone to try to pressurise the master into making decisions against his better judgment. That fits perfectly within our territorial waters, but not on the high seas. That is one of the biggest things we can work on with the IMO and address in the work we are doing to tackle crimes at sea. That is because it is the responsibility of the signatory to the regulations and the member states, although on the high seas the situation is completely different.
	An investigation did take place, and I have some quotes here from the United States Coast Guard. It investigated the accident, and the quotations that my hon. and learned Friend cited were absolutely right. But—this is the big but—it concluded that no criminal offence had been committed under US law. That was the US Coast Guard’s comment, not mine. I have to, probably understandably, respect its decision.
	I find it astonishing that after Mrs Wood secured the civil judgment against the company, the fines were paltry—“loose change” would be the polite term for them. The fact that the owner has not even paid the fines is another matter. If there is any way we can work within government to try to address that, too, we will do so. It was a civil action, so the situation is slightly different from that of a criminal action, as my hon. and learned Friend understands fully.
	Nobody in this House would have put the argument across in a more lucid way than my hon. and learned Friend. As the Minister responsible for the agencies involved in this situation, I feel that it cannot be right that we are so restricted within government as to what we can and cannot do, given that we all want to do the right thing internationally, as well as here. From the discussions I have had with the new secretary-general of the IMO, I am aware that there is a keenness within the international community to address the terrible situation of serious crimes at sea, of which this is one, that go,
	not “uninvestigated”, although I nearly said that, but without reaching the natural justice that we would all be looking for.
	This is not the only incident that I have been working on recently. It is right and proper that my hon. and learned Friend has brought these issues to me, but I am dealing with other issues where people have been raped at sea, murdered at sea or have vanished off ships on the high seas. One of the things that I have found really difficult is that one of the defences from some of the smaller flag nations is that they—perhaps—do not see the offence as serious enough or perhaps do not have enough funding within their police authority to investigate it fully. That is no excuse at all, and that is one of the big issues that we are continuing to raise at the moment.
	I believe that I am very close to the time when I will have to sit down, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for your kind nod. The last thing that I wish to say is that I will certainly meet the families as soon as we possibly can. I will work with my hon. and learned Friend and the families, and with anyone else who wants to work with us, so that we do everything we can to see whether this prosecution is possible and, if it is not, to make sure that we protect other families’ loved ones when they put to sea on the high seas.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.